Skip to main content

Full text of "PRS Series No. 3: In memoriam, Richard S. Fraser : an appreciation and selection of his work"

See other formats 


Prometheus  Research  Series    3 


In  Memoriam 

Richard  S.  Fraser 


An  Appreciation  and  Selection 

of  His  Work 


^egy?  Prometheus  Research  Library 


$6.00 
August  1990 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2013 


http://archive.org/details/inmemoriamricharOOkirk 


In  Memoriam 

Richard  S.  Fraser 


An  Appreciation  and  Selection 
of  His  Work 


Prometheus  Research  Library 

New  York,  New  York 

August  1990 


Prometheus  graphic 
from  a  woodcut  by  Fritz  Brosius 


ISBN  0-9633828-5-3 
Second  Printing,  March  1994 


Prometheus  Research  Series  is  published  by 
Spartacist  Publishing  Co.,  Box  1377  GPO,  New  York,  NY  10116 


Table  of  Contents 

I.  Introductory  Materials 

Richard  S.  Fraser  1913-1988       3 

Memorial  Meeting  for  Richard  S.  Fraser,  8  January  1989     5 

Revolutionary  Integration:  Program  for  Black  Liberation, 

Introductory  Note  by  the  Prometheus  Research  Library    19 

Fraser  and  American  Scholarship  on  the  Black  Question, 

by  David  Dreiser    20 

II.  Documents  by  Richard  S.  Fraser 

San  Diego  Farm  Strike  Is  Crushed,  20  February  1937      23 

New  NMU  Hall— Facade  to  Hide  Union  Retreat,  8  July  1944      25 

Soldiers  Cheer  Striking  Workers,  15  December  1945      27 

The  Negro  Struggle  and  the  Proletarian  Revolution:  Two  Lectures 

given  at  the  Friday  Night  Forum,  Los  Angeles,  November  1953       29 

Contribution  to  the  Discussion  on  the  Slogan 

"Send  Federal  Troops  to  Mississippi,"  10  March  1956    51 

Communist  Party  Internal  Discussion: 

Report  to  the  District  Negro  Commission,  1956       56 

Resolution  on  the  Negro  Struggle,  25  May  1957     61 

Summary  Remarks  on  Negro  Discussion,  June  1957      68 

On  Federal  Troops  in  Little  Rock,  10  October  1957       71 

On  the  SWP  and  the  Vietnam  Antiwar  Movement,  13  December  1965       72 

Why  We  Left  the  Socialist  Workers  Party,  June  1966       78 

A  Letter  to  American  Trotskyists:  Too  Little,  Too  Late  (Memorandum 

on  the  Problems  of  Building  a  Revolutionary  Party),  1974/75    83 

On  Transitional  Organizations,  29  May  1983      93 

To  the  Democratic  Socialists  of  America,  18  June  1983      95 

On  "Color  Caste,"  15  January  1984      102 

On  Libya,  21  March  1986     105 

III.  Appendix 

Bibliography  of  Works  by  Richard  S.  Fraser    106 


This  bulletin  is  dedicated  to 

Dave  Dreiser, 

good  friend  and  long-time  collaborator 

of  Dick  Fraser 


Richard  S.  Fraser 

1913-1988 


Richard  S.  Fraser,  a  veteran  Trotskyist  and 
tenacious  fighter  for  black  freedom,  died  in  his 
sleep  on  November  27  at  the  age  of  75.  For  the 
last  several  years  Dick  fought  to  overcome  many 
painful  and  debilitating  illnesses,  mustering  the 
courage  to  face  endless  operations,  so  that  he 
could  continue  his  research  and  literary  work  on 
the  question  of  the  revolutionary  struggle  for 
black  liberation  in  America.  Comrade  Fraser  was 
not  only  a  cherished  friend  but  a  theoretical  men- 
tor of  the  Spartacist  League. 
SL  National  Chairman  Jim 
Robertson  has  acknowledged 
his  considerable  personal  po- 
litical debt  to  comrade  Fraser. 

Dick  Fraser  was  a  co-re- 
porter on  the  black  question 
at  our  founding  conference  in 
1966.  His  work  was  pub- 
lished as  part  of  our  Marxist 
Bulletin  No.  5,  "What  Strategy 
for  Black  Liberation?  Trot- 
skyism vs.  Black  National- 
ism," and  he  was  a  close  col- 
laborator in  our  work  to 
establish  organizations  of 
labor/black  defense.  As  the 
Labor  Black  League  for  Social 
Defense  in  the  Bay  Area 
wrote  in  memoriam:  "Richard 
Fraser  was  our  teacher,  the 
author  of  'For  the  Materialist 
Conception  of  the  Negro 
Question'  that  lights  the  road 
to  black  freedom  through  the 
program  of  revolutionary  integration,  the  assimila- 
tion of  black  people  into  an  egalitarian  socialist 
society." 

Fraser  joined  the  Trotskyist  movement  in 
1 934,  recruited  on  a  cross-country  Greyhound  bus 
trip  by  a  member  of  the  newly  formed  Workers 
Party — the  product  of  a  fusion  between  the 
Trotskyist  Communist  League  of  America  and  A.J. 
Muste's  American  Workers  Party.  For  close  to  30 
years  he  was  an  organizer  of  the  Socialist 
Workers  Party  on  the  West  Coast  in  Los  Angeles 
and   Seattle;    for  at  least  20  years  he  was  a 


member  of  the  SWP's  National  Committee.  In  the 
Pacific  Northwest  Fraser  won  several  members  of 
the  Communist  Party  in  Seattle  to  Trotskyism 
following  the  1 956  Hungarian  Revolution  and  the 
Khrushchev  revelations.  That  Seattle  was  the 
place  where  the  SWP  had  its  most  significant  suc- 
cess in  cracking  the  Stalinists  is  a  testament  to 
the  persistence  and  political  capabilities  of 
Richard  Fraser. 

Through  his  involvement  in  black  freedom 
struggles  and  experience  in 
the  recruitment  and  subse- 
quent loss  of  hundreds  of 
black  workers  from  the  SWP 
following  World  War  II,  Dick 
came  to  believe  that  the 
American  communist  move- 
ment had  failed  to  come  to 
grips  with  the  question  of 
black  liberation  in  this  coun- 
try. Although  lacking  much 
formal  education,  he  dedi- 
cated himself  to  the  study  of 
the  black  question.  Criticizing 
the  SWP  for  underestimating 
the  revolutionary  challenge 
to  American  capitalism  posed 
by  the  integrationist  strug- 
gles for  black  equality,  in 
1955  he  submitted  his  docu- 
ment "For  the  Materialist 
Conception  of  the  Negro 
Question."  Here  Fraser  coun- 
terposed  revolutionary  inte- 
gration to  the  SWP's  turn  to- 
ward a  separatist  "self-determination"  ideology 
(associated  particularly  with  George  Breitman), 
which  would  become  a  theoretical  cover  for  its 
abstention  from  the  mass  civil  rights  movement  in 
the  early  1960s  and  subsequent  full-blown 
capitulation  to  black  nationalism. 

Dick  came  into  disfavor  with  the  SWP  leader- 
ship when  he  opposed  the  party's  adoption  of  the 
call  for  federal  troops  to  protect  Southern  blacks. 
In  his  "Resolution  on  the  Little  Rock  Crisis" 
Fraser  tore  apart  the  SWP's  support  to  Eisen- 
hower's introduction  of  federal  troops  in  Little 


Rock  in  1957,  powerfully  pointing  out  that  the 
end  result  had  been  the  crushing  of  local  black 
self-defense  efforts.  In  the  1960s  Fraser  along 
with  other  SWP  spokesmen  was  propelled  out  of 
the  party  as  it  plunged  from  centrism  to  refor- 
mism. As  he  wrote  in  a  letter  to  his  son:  "It  was 
I  who  initiated  the  split  from  the  SWP  by  publicly 
attacking  its  Personal  Representative,  my  old 
friend  Asher  Harer,  whom  I  had  recruited  in 
1935,  for  the  SWP  stand  on  the  Vietnam  War,  and 
proclaiming  that  the  way  to  'BRING  THE  TROOPS 
HOME'  was  for  the  Viet  Cong  to  drive  them  into 
the  South  China  Sea." 

Fraser  went  on  to  found  the  Seattle-based 
Freedom  Socialist  Party.  Cut  off  by  a  split  in  the 
FSP,  Dick  went  into  the  New  American  Movement 
hoping  that  he  could  influence  and  educate  some 
of  these  young  New  Leftists  in  the  old  Leninist 
school.  With  the  fusion  of  NAM  and  the  Demo- 
cratic Socialist  Organizing  Committee  Fraser  was 
subsequently  carried  into  the  Democratic  Social- 
ists of  America. 

Over  the  years  we  had  our  disagreements 
with  Dick.  Neither  of  ur  *ned  to  hide  these,  but 
we  were  always  happy  to  bend  the  stick  in  favor 
of  the  areas  of  profound  political  agreement 
between  us.  In  his  later  years  Fraser  was  handi- 
capped by  the  loss  of  his  Marxist  library,  which 
the  SL  sought  to  replenish,  and  of  his  personal 


working  papers.  In  turn  Dick's  collaboration  was 
invaluable  in  elaborating  a  perspective  for 
rooting  the  SL  among  militant  black  workers  and 
youth.  Fraser's  formal  membership  in  other  or- 
ganizations obviously  stood  in  contradiction  to 
his  fervent  political  beliefs,  a  contradiction  which 
was  resolved  in  his  last  years.  Sharing  our  out- 
rage over  the  U.S.  bombing  of  Libya,  he  distanced 
himself  from  the  DSA. 

Addressing  the  SL/U.S.  Seventh  National 
Conference  (1983)  on  the  question  of  the  organi- 
zation of  labor/black  leagues,  Dick  spoke 
movingly: 

"I've  had  some  discussions  with  many  comrades, 
which  have  been  very  gratifying,  and  I  am  humbled 
by  the  knowledge  that  things  that  I  wrote  30  years 
ago,  which  were  so  scorned  by  the  old  party,  have 
had  some  important  impact,  finally." 

Dick's  last  political  act  before  his  death  was  his 
endorsement  of  the  November  5  Mobilization  that 
stopped  the  Klan  in  Philadelphia.  That  satisfying 
mobilization  of  the  power  of  integrated  labor  was 
a  testament  to  our  comrade  Richard  Fraser  who 
in  endorsing  identified  himself  as  a  "historic 
American  Trotskyist."  That  he  was,  and  his  loss 
will  be  keenly  felt. 

Adapted  from  Workers  Vanguard 
No.  466,  2  December  1988 


Memorial  Meeting  for  Richard  S.  Fraser 


On  8  January  1989  the  Spartacist  League  held  a  memorial  meeting  in  Los  Angeles 
to  honor  the  life  and  work  of  Richard  S.  Fraser.  Some  85  people  came  out  to  pay 
tribute  to  Fraser,  from  old  comrades  and  friends  going  back  over  50  years  when  Dick 
joined  the  Trotskyist  movement  to  a  younger  generation  which  included  many  mem- 
bers of  the  Spartacist  League.  Also  present  was  his  son  Jonny,  whom  Dick  cherished. 

A  beautiful  display  of  photographs  and  other  materials  illustrating  Dick's  life  was 
assembled  by  comrades  from  the  West  Coast,  many  of  whom  had  worked  with  and 
cared  for  Dick  during  his  last  years  as  he  courageously  fought  many  painful  and 
debilitating  illnesses  to  carry  on  his  life's  work.  The  speeches  and  messages  to  the 
memorial  meeting  were  as  rich  and  diverse  as  the  man  they  remembered. 

The  International  Communist  League  is  fortunate  to  be  the  heir  to  an  unbroken 
revolutionary  tradition  which  goes  back  to  Lenin  and  Trotsky's  Communist  Interna- 
tional. Dick  Fraser  was  an  important  part  of  that  continuity  and  it  is  in  this  spirit 
that  we  are  reprinting  in  full  the  speeches  and  messages  to  his  memorial  meeting, 
originally  serialized  in  Workers  Vanguard  Nos.  469-471  (20  January,  3  February 
and  17  February  1989). 


Karen  Wyatt 

Los  Angeles  Spartacist  League 

We're  here  today  to  honor  the  life  of  Richard 
Fraser.  Dick  joined  the  Trotskyist  movement  at 
the  age  of  21  in  1934  and  was  an  active  partici- 
pant in  the  socialist  movement  until  his  death  on 
November  27,  1988.  The  attendance  here  today 
I  think  is  a  testimony  to  his  deep  and  lasting 
friendships  as  well  as  the  political  impact  he  had 
on  his  own  and  on  younger  generations.  We'll 
have  seven  speakers  as  well  as  twelve  messages 
from  comrades  and  friends  who  couldn't  attend 
today.  After  that  we  will  conclude  with  the  sing- 
ing of  the  Internationale.  Now  you're  all  welcome 
to  stay  following  that.  The  bar  will  be  open  and 
you  can  look  at  all  the  displays  that  have  been 
done.  We'll  also  be  playing  music  that  Dick  partic- 
ularly liked.  Included  in  this  is  some  music  that 
was  written,  orchestrated  and  played  by  Dick's 
son  Jonny  who  is  here  today.  Dick's  love  for  his 
son  was  very  great.  Even  after  eleven  hours  of 
surgery  the  mention  of  Jonn/s  name  would  light 
up  his  eyes,  and  he  was  very  proud  of  his  music. 

Don  Andrews 

reading  statement  of  the  Bay  Area  Labor  Black 
League  for  Social  Defense 

We  in  the  Labor  Black  League  for  Social  De- 
fense salute  Richard  S.  Fraser,  historic  American 


Trotskyist,  who  died  today,  27  November  1988. 
Richard  Fraser  was  our  teacher,  the  author  of 
"For  the  Materialist  Conception  of  the  Negro 
Question"  that  lights  the  road  to  black  freedom 
through  the  program  of  revolutionary  integration, 
the  assimilation  of  black  people  into  an  egali- 
tarian socialist  society. 

Richard  Fraser,  the  theoretician,  was  above 
all  an  organizer  and  a  tireless  fighter  for  freedom 
for  black  Americans  and  all  the  working  people. 
His  courageous  struggle  in  his  later  years  to 
overcome  his  many  painful  illnesses  in  order  to 
complete  his  historic  work  on  the  black  question 
is  only  one  recent  example  of  his  exemplary 
tenacity. 

Comrade  Fraser  rejoiced  in  and  endorsed  our 
victorious  labor/black  mobilizations  that  stopped 
cold  the  Ku  Klux  Klan's  intended  provocations  in 
Washington,  D.C.  on  November  27,  1982  and  our 
recent  satisfying  victory  against  these  fascists  on 
November  5,  1988  in  Philadelphia.  The  labor/ 
black  mobilizations  are  in  life  the  verification  of 
Richard  Fraser's  historic  contribution  to  history: 
for  revolutionary  integrationism  as  the  road  to 
the  emancipation  of  the  American  proletariat- 
white  and  black— as  opposed  to  the  dead  end  of 
black  nationalism.  From  its  inception  the  Sparta- 
cist League's  adaption  of  Richard  Fraser's  pro- 
gram of  revolutionary  integrationism  has  been 
the  cornerstone  of  Spartacist's  program  of  black 


liberation  through  socialist  revolution.  Our 
organization,  the  Labor  Black  League  for  Social 
Defense,  grew  out  of  the  SL's  successful  Novem- 
ber 27,  1982  mobilization  that  stopped  the  KKK. 
We  honor  our  friend  and  teacher  Richard 
Fraser  most  of  all  by  continuing  his  fight.  For- 
ward to  the  Third  American  Revolution  to  Finish 
the  Civil  War!  Hail  Richard  S.  Fraser,  fighter  for 
black  freedom! 

Charles  Curtiss 

who  knew  Dick  Fraser  for  55  years  and  was  Los 
Angeles  organizer  of  the  Communist  League  of 
America  when  Dick  joined 

I  am  here  in  two  capacities.  From  the  Los 
Angeles  Socialist  Party  I  bring  condolences  to  the 
family,  friends  and  comrades  of  Dick  Fraser.  But 
I'm  also  here  in  a  personal  capacity,  for  the  ties 
that  link  Dick  Fraser  and  me  go  back  more  than 
a  half  century.  On  counting  back  it  was  about  55 
years  ago  that  I  first  met  Dick  in  San  Diego.  We 
were  obviously  considerably  younger  then. 
Together  we  studied  the  fundamentals  of  interna- 
tionalist socialism,  the  class  struggle  and  its  final 
outcome  in  socialism.  We  pondered  over  the 
sources  of  surplus  value,  class  exploitation  and  its 
termination  in  a  socialist  society  of  abundance  for 
all  with  production  for  use  not  profit. 

We  analyzed  the  cruelty  and  the  absurdity  of 
unemployment,  of  want  and  suffering  in  the  midst 
of  plenty.  This  was  in  the  very  depths  of  the 
Depression.  We  probed  the  economic  and  political 
roots  of  war  and  imperialism,  and  how  to  eradi- 
cate them  and  establish  an  economic  order  inter- 
nationally where  the  antagonism  between  classes 
vanishes,  the  hostility  of  one  nation  to  another 
will  come  to  an  end. 

We  learned  and  we  were  also  active.  We 
fought  against  fascism  in  demonstrations.  We  bat- 
tled in  discussion  with  individual  members  of  the 
Communist  Party  and  its  supporters  against  Sta- 
linism and  for  the  internationalist  essential  of 
socialism  as  against  the  monstrosity  of  the  theory 
of  "socialism  in  one  country."  And  he,  we,  re- 
sponded "present"  with  enthusiasm  on  picket 
lines,  as  volunteers  in  supporting  union  efforts, 
in  backing  the  movements  of  the  unemployed  and 
the  oppressed  segments  of  our  society  for  human 
rights. 

Dick  had  a  constant  and  loved  companion— 
his  fiddle.  He  was  a  sensitive  musician,  a  talented 
and  devoted  violinist.  For  it  is  well  to  remember 
that  we,  young  people,  many  of  us  in  our  teens, 
brought  into  the  socialist  movement  music  and 


literature.  We  had  choral  groups  and  we  heard 
recitals  at  our  socials.  We  formed  drama  groups 
and  Dick  among  others  gave  much  here. 

There  was  a  kindliness  and  generosity  in  Dick 
that  surmounted  even  the  bitterness  of  the  fac- 
tionalism that  marked  the  socialist  movement  and 
that  asserted  itself,  despite  the  torturous  pain  he 
was  suffering.  And  this  kindliness  and  generosity, 
as  so  often  happens,  called  forth  kindliness  and 
generosity  in  turn  in  those  he  touched,  whether 
briefly  or  for  long  periods  of  time.  There  is 
guidance  in  this  thought.  Dick  in  his  integrity,  his 
giving  of  himself  without  stint  in  the  daily  work 
for  socialism,  his  respect  for  clarity  and  knowl- 
edge in  the  realm  of  thought,  his  artistry,  his 
magnanimity,  was  a  forerunner  of  the  person  of 
the  human  future  of  associated  labor  in  which  the 
free  development  of  each  is  a  condition  for  the 
free  development  of  all. 

As  I  visited  him  in  the  last  months  of  his  life, 
and  these  visits  were  harrowing  for  he  was  very 
sick,  I  bear  witness  that  he  remained  true  to  the 
ideals  and  goals  and  values  he  consciously 
adopted  55  and  more  years  ago.  The  thoughts  of 
youth  were  for  him  long,  long  thoughts.  With  all 
the  setbacks  of  the  intervening  years  and  with  all 
the  pain  of  his  illnesses,  Dick  stood  fast  as  an 
internationalist  socialist  to  the  very  last  day  of  his 
life.  This  memory  he  left  us  and  it  is  precious. 

Myra  Tanner  Weiss 

former  longtime  member  of  the  Socialist  Workers 
Party  sent  the  following  greetings 

Dick  Fraser  lived  his  whole  life  as  a  socialist. 
However  important  the  differences  we  had  be- 
tween us,  we  shared  the  desire  for  a  socialist 
society  and  Dick  struggled  always  to  organize  the 
working  class  and  to  raise  its  political  conscious- 
ness. My  special  sympathy  for  our  loss  goes  to 
those  of  you  who  not  only  lost  a  comrade  but  a 
close  political  collaborator  and  friend  as  well.  He 
can  never  be  replaced  in  your  hearts.  Dick  was 
always  certain  of  the  socialist  victory  for  which 
he  devoted  his  life.  And  so  are  we.  In  revolu- 
tionary solidarity. 

Dave  Cooper 

member  of  Socialist  Action  who  first  met  Dick 
Fraser  in  the  SWP  in  Minneapolis  in  1938 

I  was  listening  to  a  tape  recording  this 
morning  of  the  history  of  the  IWW.  Now  Dick 
was  never  a  member  of  the  IWW.  But  if  you  knew 
Dick  Fraser  you  knew  that  his  roots  were  in  the 
IWW.  What  do  I  mean  by  that?  I  mean,  Dick  may 


not  have  had  a  penny  in  his  pocket,  but  he  might 
have  heard  that  there  was  a  contact  a  hundred 
miles  away.  And  Dick  knew  how  to  go  the 
cheapest  way— thumb  or  railroad. 

One  of  the  comrades  I  talked  to,  Asher  Harer, 
who  was  recruited  by  Dick,  said  they  had  a  peace 
demonstration  where  Asher  went  to  school,  and 
who  showed  up  but  Dick  Fraser.  And  when  he 
showed  up,  Asher  said,  "Do  you  have  any 
money?"  "Hmm,  yes,"  he  said,  "I  have  five 
dollars."  Now  he  had  to  go  about  150  miles,  but 
he  heard  that  there  was  a  peace  demonstration 
and  there  might  be  a  possibility  of  a  recruit.  So 
wherever  there  was  a  possibility  of  recruiting, 
wherever  there  was  a  possibility  of  participating 
in  a  strike,  wherever  there  was  a  problem  in  the 
working  class  you  could  expect  Dick  to  be  there. 

Now  I  lived  in  Minneapolis.  I  went  to  the 
university  during  the  great  strikes.  And  we  were 
sitting  around  with  Max  Geldman— unfortunately 
this  has  been  a  period  where  we've  lost  a  number 
of  the  comrades  that  have  had  50  years  in  the 
movement  or  more.  A  good  part  of  that  generation— 
I'm  glad  I'm  a  lot  younger— but  a  good  part  of 
that  generation  has  left  us.  But  we  were  sitting 
around  the  table,  Max  Geldman  had  just  come 
from  the  convention  in  '38,  which  was  the  found- 
ing of  the  Socialist  Workers  Party.  He  was  much 
wealthier— he  took  a  bus  or  a  train,  I  don't  re- 
member. And  about  three  or  four  days  later,  in 
came  Dick.  A  knock  at  the  door  and  this  man  with 
a  gentle  face,  as  he's  been  described  by  Charlie, 
5 '10"  or  5 '11",  I  guess,  came  in.  And  I  said, 
"Well,  how  did  you  get  here?"  He  said,  "a  very 
cheap  form  of  transportation."  I  asked  him  what 
it  was  and  he  said,  "Well,  I  found  that  the  boxcar 
and  the  thumb  were  one  way  you  can  get  almost 
anywhere  in  the  country."  That  was  Dick  Fraser. 

I  didn't  meet  Dick  again— although  I  heard 
that  he  had  become  a  seaman,  he  was  a  seaman 
for  about  four  years— until  I  came  to  Los  Angeles. 
I  had  heard  from  Asher  the  story  that  Charlie  told 
you,  about  the  fact  that  Dick  had  been  a  violinist, 
that  he  was  with  the  San  Diego  symphony  orches- 
tra for  a  period  of  time.  People  wanted  him  to  go 
on  to  study  with  leading  musicians.  But  once  he 
had  seen  the  vision,  the  socialist  vision,  once  he 
had  seen  the  idea  of  internationalism,  of  an  inde- 
pendent working  class,  of  a  type  of  party  that  was 
necessary  to  make  a  revolution  in  this  country, 
Dick  put  away  his  violin  and  joined  the  socialist 
movement. 

And  in  Los  Angeles,  the  thing  that  I  remem- 
ber about  Dick  is  that  there  was  no  task  that  Dick 


wouldn't  do.  I  was  telling  Karen  when  I  talked  to 
her  that  if  the  office  had  to  be  cleaned  up,  Dick 
would  clean  it  up.  If  there  was  a  strike  to  go  to, 
Dick  would  go  and  provide  whatever  leadership. 
If  there  was  a  struggle,  any  type  of  struggle  of  the 
working  class,  you  could  depend  on  Dick  to  be 
there. 

And  that  was  one  of  the  reasons  that  I 
wanted  to  speak.  Because  in  this  tradition  of  a 
number  of  comrades  that  have  left  us— I  must  tell 
you  that  I  talked  this  morning  to  a  woman  who 
was  one  of  the  leading  comrades  on  the  East 
Coast  and  she  said,  "What  have  we  achieved? 
We've  had  Dick  and  Max  [Shachtman]  and 
[James]  Cannon  and  all  these  people.  Where  are 
we  now?"  And  I  smiled  to  myself  as  I  said  to  her 
on  the  phone:  Where  was  the  working  class  in 
1917?  Where  is  the  working  class  of  the  world 
today?  Where  is  the  capitalist  class  today?  It's  in 
a  blind  alley.  These  comrades  left  us  with  a  great 
and  a  historic  tradition  and  we  will  link  up  with 
the  revolutionaries  of  England,  France,  of  Africa, 
Latin  America. 

Yes,  great  were  the  contributions  that  these 
comrades  made  and  we  will  live  to  see  younger 
comrades  coming  in,  taking  up  the  cudgels  and 
becoming  part  of  that  fight.  And  you  young  com- 
rades who  are  not  part  of  the  movement  yet,  you 
must  take  up  where  Dick  and  many  of  the  others 
left  off  and  carry  this  struggle  on.  Because  there 
is  no  question,  there  is  a  socialist  vision  and  there 
is  a  socialist  movement.  And  if  you  believe  in  the 
socialist  vision,  you  must  become  a  part  of  that 
socialist  movement.  Thank  you. 

Dorothy  Ray  Healey 

of  the  Democratic  Socialists  of  America  sent  the  fol- 
lowing statement  dated  28  December  1988 

I  don't  remember  what  year  it  was  when  I 
met  Dick  Fraser.  I  do  remember,  however,  how  it 
came  about  and  what  we  discussed.  He  phoned, 
said  he  listened  to  my  radio  program  on  KPFK, 
was  a  former  member  of  the  S.W.P.  and  suggested 
we  get  together  for  a  visit.  Both  of  us  were 
amazed  at  how  much  the  S.W.P.  and  the  C.P.  re- 
sembled one  another  in  their  organizational 
methodology  even  as  each  was  proclaiming  the 
other  as  a  chief  opponent.  When  I  told  him  how 
Les  Evans,  then  a  member  of  the  S.W.P.  had  told 
me  of  his  being  present  at  Jim  Cannon's  home 
watching  the  TV  news  report  of  the  1962  Cali- 
fornia elections  and  how  Cannon  exulted  in  Pat 
Brown's  defeat  of  Richard  Nixon  for  governor, 
Dick  commented  that  way  down  deep  many  Trot- 


skyists  did  recognize  that  there  was  a  difference 
between  Republicans  and  Democrats.  He  said  that 
in  1939  when  Cannon  and  other  leading  Trotsky- 
ists  visited  Trotsky  in  Mexico,  they  discussed 
electoral  policy  with  him  and  asked  what  the  po- 
sition should  be  if  an  Afro-American  was  running 
as  a  Democrat.  According  to  Dick,  Trotsky 
replied:  "We  support  the  men  not  the  party." 

Dick's  pamphlet,  "An  Open  Letter  to  American 
Trotskyists"  is  one  of  the  few  examples  I  know  of 
where  a  critical  and  self-critical  analysis  of  past 
policies  was  made  public.  It  was  no  surprise  to 
anyone  who  knew  of  Dick's  focus  on  a  proper 
policy  for  Marxists  toward  the  "national  question" 
for  his  pamphlet  to  attack  the  racism  involved  in 
the  S.W.P.'s  policy  in  the  1930's  toward  Harry 
Lundberg,  head  of  the  Sailors  Union  of  the 
Pacific. 

He  joined  the  New  American  Movement  and 
was  active  within  it  until  his  illness  curtailed  his 
mobility.  But  each  time  I  visited  him  at  the  hos- 
pital or  his  home  I  was  impressed  by  his  will- 
power and  his  determination  to  overcome  his 
physical  ailments  and  the  mental  clarity  with 
which  he  surveyed  the  world. 

I  am  grateful  to  all  of  you  for  the  solicitude 
and  care  you  gave  him  until  the  day  he  died. 

Cliff  Carter 

a  longtime  union  activist  in  the  Tidewater  area  of 
Virginia  and  a  friend  of  Dick's  sent  the  following 
message  dated  28  December  1988 

Today  I  went  to  the  public  library  and  looked 
in  the  Books  in  Print  titled  "Authors,"  and 
searched  for  Richard  S.  Fraser.  Dick's  name  wasn't 
there  and  I  felt  a  little  bad  about  this;  but  then 
I  had  a  very  good  feeling  that  in  the  near  future 
his  name  will  be  listed  with  the  "Authors"  with 
the  completion  of  his  book  titled,  "The  Struggle 
Against  Slavery  in  the  United  States." 

Some  time  ago,  around  the  end  of  November 
I  received  a  call  from  a  friend  that  said  Fraser 
passed  away  in  his  sleep  27  November  1988,  the 
same  day  the  Spartacist  League  and  friends 
stopped  the  Klan  in  1982. 

I  met  Dick  in  1985  and  had  a  couple  of  talks 
with  him  concerning  a  book  that  he  was  in  the 
process  of  writing.  At  the  time,  the  title  of  the 
book  was  "The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power," 
but  was  changed  in  June  1986,  because  a  Senator 
Wilson  used  the  same  name  about  a  century  ago. 

In  our  conversation,  Dick  told  me  that  I 
would  be  surprised  how  many  black  people  do 
not  know  the  complete  truth  about  slavery  in  the 


United  States.  Dick  said,  "My  book  will  be  written 
for  scholars,  teachers,  students  and  for  anybody 
who  wants  to  read  the  book." 

Fraser  sent  me  to  my  history  book  when  he 
said,  "After  the  election  of  Thomas  Jefferson  as 
president  and  he  (Jefferson)  made  the  Louisiana 
Purchase,  everything  went  along  smooth  for  the 
slave  holders."  Jefferson's  presidency  (1801-1809) 
was  the  beginning  of  the  now  Democratic  Party. 

Thomas  Jefferson  being  president  of  the 
United  States  (his  occupation  listed  as  a  planter) 
and  a  big  slaveholder  was  a  founder  of  the  now 
"friend  of  labor"  Democratic  Party.  This  is  why 
the  workforce,  black  and  white,  should  break 
away  from  the  Democrats,  for  a  party  started  by 
wrong  people  cannot  be  changed.  You  destroy 
this  wrong  party  and  build  a  new  party  free  of 
slaveholding  policies. 

Dick  Fraser  sent  me  a  copy  of  his  writings 
entitled,  "Two  Lectures  on  Black  Liberation," 
which  was  delivered  in  1953  at  the  Militant  Labor 
Forum  at  Los  Angeles.  One  of  the  subtitles  is, 
"The  Negro  Struggle,  Capitalist  Politics  and  the 
Labor  Movement."  Enclosed  are  five  sentences 
from  the  above: 

1.  "But  it  must  be  remembered  that  if  it  was  the 
Democratic  Party  which  created  the  semi-fascist 
southern  system,  it  was  the  Republican  Party 
which  voluntarily  turned  the  South  over  to  the 
Klan." 

Dick  was  talking  about  the  Compromise  of  1877, 
when  arrangements  were  made  between  Southern 
Democrats  and  Republicans  to  give  the  1876 
presidential  election  to  Republican  Rutherford  B. 
Hayes  (loser  in  the  popular  vote),  in  exchange  for 
withdrawal  of  federal  troops  from  the  South. 

2.  "The  Democrats,  it  is  true,  are  the  main 
upholders  of  white  supremacy." 

With  this  coming  from  Dick  over  30  years  ago, 
why  are  labor  and  black  leaders  still  today  trying 
to  tie  the  workforce  with  the  Democratic  Party? 
To  preserve  white  supremacy  and  maintain 
segregation  among  the  workforce. 

3.  "Votes  don't  determine  or  control  anything  of 
great  importance  in  the  South." 

This  is  true  because  the  working  people  have 
never  obtained  anything  at  the  voting  polls  ex- 
cept another  politician  to  mess  up  things  some 
more. 

4.  "Without  the  overthrow  of  prejudice  unionism 
itself  is  always  in  danger." 

This  reminds  me  of  November  27,  1982  when  the 
Spartacist  League  along  with  unionists  from  the 
East  Coast  stopped  the  Klan  from  marching  in 


Washington,  D.C.  The  very  first  workday  on  the 
job,  fake  local  union  heads  tried  to  bring  the 
stoppers  of  the  KKK  up  on  charges  of  inciting 
a  riot.  A  Klan  sympathizer  is  the  same  as  a 
Klansman. 

5.  "The  low  wages  of  the  South  are  a  constant 
pressure  upon  all  unions  throughout  the 
country." 
The  capitalist  uses  the  South  to  set  the  standards 
as  far  as  prices  are  concerned.  Cheap  labor  can 
always  be  found  in  the  South  for  the  Northern 
factories. 

While  looking  through  my  files,  I  came  across 
a  note-type  letter  that  was  never  mailed  to  Dick 
Fraser:  To  Dick  Fraser:  You  said,  "Discrimination 
and  prejudice  in  the  rest  of  the  United  States 
derives  directly  from  the  southern  system,  feeds 
upon  it,  and  like  racial  discrimination  throughout 
the  world  is  completely  dependent  upon  it."  In 
another  paragraph  you  said,  "But  since  discrim- 
ination in  the  North  and  West  derives  from  the 
southern  system,  it  will  never  be  eliminated  until 
the  southern  system  is  uprooted  and  destroyed." 

My  comment  to  Dick:  I  like  this,  Dick.  This 
is  important  to  remember  for  everybody  who  is 
against  discrimination  and  prejudice.  If  you  want 
to  destroy  the  two  (discrimination  and  prejudice) , 
you  start  at  the  source,  the  beginning.  Go  to  the 
South  Land,  the  origin  of  the  hell  fire. 

Dick  told  me  he  joined  the  Socialist  Workers 
Party  in  1934.  With  the  decay  of  the  SWP,  and 
the  actions  of  Dick's  last  performances  prove  that 
he  is  the  same  Trotskyist  in  1988  as  1934. 

The  worthwhile  people  die  too  quick. 

Monica  Hill 

reading  statement  from  the  Freedom  Socialist  Party 
National  Committee 

The  Freedom  Socialist  Party  extends  its  sym- 
pathy to  Jon  Fraser  and  to  the  comrades  and 
friends  of  Dick  Fraser  gathered  here  today. 

Dick  made  a  lasting  contribution  to  our 
movement  and  to  the  Black  liberation  struggle 
through  his  collaboration  with  Dave  Dreiser, 
Clara  Fraser  and  others  in  originating  and  devel- 
oping the  Revolutionary  Integration  position. 
Dick  spoke  brilliantly  on  Revolutionary  Integra- 
tion, many  times  from  the  pulpits  of  Black 
churches.  And  his  grasp  of  history,  economics, 
and  politics  was  widely  admired.  He  is  remem- 
bered for  his  scholarly  talks  on  a  host  of  issues, 
his  energetic  organizing,  and  his  stinging  barbs 
at  the  bourgeoisie. 

Fraser's  profound  Marxist  analysis  in  Revolu- 


tionary Integration  is  destined  to  become  one  of 
the  most  powerful  weapons  in  the  arsenal  of  U.S. 
radicals.  It  has  already  left  an  indelible  mark  on 
our  organization,  helping  to  shape  it  into  a  multi- 
racial party  with  deep  respect  for  the  materialist 
roots  of  the  vanguard  role  of  Blacks  in  the  fight 
for  socialism. 

The  FSP  parted  ways  with  Dick  in  a  serious, 
bitter  and  well-known  struggle  over  women's 
rights.  Still,  we  pay  respect  to  him  today  for  his 
positive  contributions  to  the  movement  as  writer, 
speaker,  teacher,  historian  and  leader  who  never 
relinquished  his  socialist  goal.  His  long  life 
encompassed  a  host  of  jobs  and  talents.  In  the 
'30s  he  supported  himself  in  Seattle  by  selling  The 
Militant  on  Skid  Road;  he  later  became  a  mer- 
chant seaman,  a  carpenter,  and  a  plastics  techni- 
cian. He  was  a  violinist  and  a  gourmet  chef.  And 
he  devoted  his  life  to  Trotskyist  politics.  As  the 
son  of  a  railroad  worker,  he  was  always  a  highly 
class  conscious  worker  and  unionist.  He  never 
finished  high  school  but  became  a  consummate 
worker-intellectual;  his  agile  mind  soaked  up  ide- 
ology like  a  sponge. 

He  left  us  two  chief  legacies:  theoretical 
work  which  guides  our  daily  practice,  and  his 
jazz  musician  son  Jon  who  is  creating  the  music 
of  a  new  and  better  society  in  the  belly  of  the  old 
one.  And  we  salute  this  unique  legacy,  this  incen- 
diary mixture  of  jazz,  Black  history  and  revolu- 
tionary socialist  theory! 

Charles  Du  Bois 

a  friend  and  comrade  of  Dick's  since  1974 

This  is  very  beautiful  here.  I  find  these  things 
out  about  Dick  that  I  never  suspected.  He  was  not 
a  braggart,  obviously.  I  first  heard  about  Dick 
Fraser  through  reading  "The  Materialist  Concep- 
tion of  the  Negro  Question."  I  was  about  18  years 
old,  this  is  back  in  71.  I  was  impressed  with  the 
document,  and  it  had  a  profound  impact  on  my 
development  and  understanding  of  American 
politics  and  especially  the  black  question,  since 
I  had  come  from  being  a  black  nationalist, 
Maoist,  kind  of. 

So  I  was  in  awe  of  his  name,  you  know,  Rich- 
ard Kirk  [Fraser]— well,  who  is  this  guy,  he's  pret- 
ty good.  Of  course,  I  didn't  know  that  about  a 
year  and  a  half  later  we'd  be  sharing  the  same 
couch.  I  was  on  the  couch  first,  I  was  staying  at 
Ted  and  Gayle  Fagin's  house,  and  I  was  sleeping 
on  the  couch,  and  he  needed  a  place.  He  had 
seniority,  so  he  got  the  couch  and  I  got  the  floor. 
So  I  finally  said,  this  is  Dick  Fraser  and,  legends 


10 


don't  quite  fit  the  mental  image  or  expectations— I 
came  from  this  Maoist  background  and  they  have 
these  bigger-than-life  leaders,  you  know,  Lenin's 
got  bulging  arms  and  stuff— this  is  Dick  Fraser, 
wow.  But  he  was  "bad."  Size  don't  count. 

When  I  met  him,  he  was  on  some  kind  of 
rebound.  He  was  not  one  to  talk  about  a  lot  of 
his  problems,  and  I  wasn't  the  kind  of  person  to 
get  nosy  with  something  somebody  didn't  want  to 
talk  about.  But  since  I  had  met  him,  I  guess  some- 
time around  '72  or  '73,  he  was  on  some  kind  of 
rebound.  I  guess  it  was  some  years  later  where  he 
actually  ended  up  soliciting  me  for  a  place  to 
stay,  but  it  was  a  privilege  that  I  was  able  to  help 
him  out.  Myself  and  the  Spartacist  League  and  all 
people  in  the  socialist  movement  are  indebted  to 
this  man  for  his  contribution. 

What  we  were  doing,  while  I  was  a  member 
of  the  Spartacist  League,  was  collaborating  with 
him  on  doing  archival  research  into  the  SWP 
work  in  the  '40s.  See,  he  never  mentioned  a  lot 
of  this  stuff  that  he  had  written  before— we  were 
going  into  the  '40s,  so  he  pointed  us  in  the  right 
direction,  but  he  didn't  tell  us.  Of  course,  he  had 
a  hard  time  speaking,  too,  so  I  guess  he  had  to 
save  his  words.  But  I  was  very  surprised  to  see  a 
lot  of  this  stuff  and  hear  all  these  stories.  I  mean, 
I  never  knew  all  this  stuff  about  Dick. 

But  one  thing  I  could  not  understand  at  the 
time  was  that  he  was  giving  us  all  this  informa- 
tion and  helping  us  out,  pointing  us  in  the  right 
direction,  and  telling  us  stories,  like  how  the  SWP 
looked  and  what  it  was  doing,  or  how  it  lost  its 
members,  how  it  gained  them,  what  the  organiza- 
tion in  Detroit  looked  like  as  far  as  he  could 
recall.  But  he  was  in  NAM  [New  American  Move- 
ment], and  you  know,  this  was  a  political  oppo- 
nent, an  organizational  opponent.  See,  I  didn't 
have  it  then,  you  know— political  opponents, 
organizational  opponents,  I  didn't  quite  get  the 
differentiation,  you  see.  And  it  was  painful  for 
him  to  talk,  but  he  was  giving  us  all  this  stuff, 
and  I  couldn't  figure  it  out.  Well,  I  got  it  figured 
out  now. 

He  really  cared  for  revolutionists,  and  people 
that  wanted  clarity  and  respected  history  and 
wanted  to  study.  And  that  above  all  was  what  the 
man  was  about.  He  wanted  to  teach.  And  your 
organizational  affiliation  wasn't  necessarily  the 
thing  that  was  going  to  color  what  he  did  and 
how  he  did  it.  The  man  was  very,  very  generous. 
I  knew  that,  and  hearing  these  people  that  knew 
the  man,  really  knew  the  man,  yes. 

So  we  have  a  great  loss  here,  a  great  loss 


with  Dick  Fraser.  But  when  I  reread  the  "Materi- 
alist Conception"  after  I  met  him,  I  had  read  it 
before  and  I  always  read  it  again,  but  it's  kind  of 
funny  reading  it  now,  because  you  read  his 
polemical  barbs  and  I  know  how  he  looks,  or  how 
he  looked,  and  could  sort  of  see  the  twinkle  in 
his  eye  like  he's  kind  of  saying  this  stuff.  It's  kind 
of  fun  to  read,  yeah,  Dick. 

I  don't  know  what  emotional  cost  he  had  to 
pay  in  terms  of  the  constant  rebounds  he  was 
having  to  make,  politically,  personally  and  then 
in  terms  of  his  health.  But  the  man,  he  never 
quit.  And  I'm  just  very  glad  to  say  that  he  was 
able  to  witness  the  impact  of  what  his  contribu- 
tion actually  has  meant,  in  terms  of  the  mobiliza- 
tions that  have  stopped  the  Klan.  That  he  was 
able  to  witness  that  and  see  that  what  he  stood 
for  was  not  just  a  good  idea  and  he's  pretty  sure 
he's  right,  but  he  knew  he  was  right,  and  that  the 
last  act  that  he  did  do,  the  last  political  act 
[endorsing  the  November  5  Mobilization  that 
stopped  the  KKK  in  Philadelphia],  this  is  very 
gratifying  that  he  was  able  to  see  that  carried 
out. 

And  what  I  can  say  is  that  Dick  Fraser  did 
not  surrender  to  the  bourgeoisie  or  bourgeois  ide- 
ology. People  have  said  it,  he  died  a  communist. 
And  we  owe  a  lot  to  Dick  Fraser,  we're  gonna 
miss  him. 

Larry  Levinson 

a  Spartacist  comrade  who  sent  the  following 
message,  dated  30  November  1988 

Dear  Comrades  and  friends, 

I  am  sending  this  letter  to  share  a  few 
thoughts  on  my  impression  of  Richard  Fraser.  I 
was  privileged  to  help  take  care  of  him  while  I 
was  still  living  in  Los  Angeles.  Looking  back  at 
this  I  can  see  that  I  was  carrying  out  an  important 
duty  as  a  young  communist  in  assisting  Richard. 
For  me  being  with  Dick  was  my  chance  to  have 
a  real  link  with  a  socialist  from  the  old  revolu- 
tionary SWP.  A  generation  of  militants  that  I 
would  only  know  through  the  program  and  the 
written  word  they  left  behind.  Although  most  of 
the  time  I  spent  with  Dick  was  involved  with 
basic  survival  tasks  for  him,  a  few  telling  facets 
of  this  man  stood  out. 

First  and  foremost  Dick  was  a  tenacious  man. 
The  medical  battle  he  waged  not  only  against  his 
condition  but  also  against  the  wretched  world  of 
doctors  and  hospitals  would  daunt  anyone.  Dick 
kept  on  fighting  and  at  the  same  time  kept  an 
ironic  slant  on  all  this.  Dick  could  tell  you  the 


11 


most  horrible  things  that  happened  to  him  and 
have  you  laughing  and  crying  at  the  same  time. 
It  was  a  bittersweet  task  to  take  care  of  Dick. 

That  Dick  was  able  to  continue  contributing 
politically  was  a  real  testament  to  his  history  as 
an  organizer  and  leader  in  the  SWP.  Where  I 
mainly  saw  this  was  how  he  would  continually 
overcome  the  latest  adversity  to  strike  him  so  as 
to  be  able  to  keep  on  following  world  events  and 
most  importantly  write  down  his  thoughts.  The 
most  important  possessions  he  had  were  his 
books,  his  television  and  his  typewriter. 

The  other  thing  that  sticks  in  my  mind  is  how 
Richard's  eyes  would  light  up  when  he  mentioned 
two  other  things  important  to  him.  These  were 
his  son  and  music.  Richard's  voice  would  get  that 
tone  of  pride  when  he  mentioned  his  son.  And 
one  nice  memory  that  will  stay  with  me  was  when 
we  were  able  to  take  Dick  to  a  concert  of  the  L.A. 
Philharmonic. 

Dick  was  a  charming  man  who  had  wards  of 
nurses  of  numerous  hospitals  in  the  greater  Los 
Angeles  area  caring  for  him  as  their  favorite 
patient.  The  only  patient  I  had  ever  seen  who  had 
a  typewriter  in  his  room. 

I  end  this  by  saying  that  I  will  always  be 
proud  for  having  been  a  part  of  helping  Dick  in 
his  later  years  and  always  a  little  sad  that  I  didn't 
know  and  learn  more  from  him. 

Jim  Stark 

a  Spartacist  comrade,  sent  the  following 
contribution 

Dick,  in  spite  of  being  in  bad  health  during 
the  last  years,  and  when  I  helped  care  for  him  in 
Los  Angeles,  was  always  willing  to  draw  on  his 
own  array  of  political  experience  to  help  us  with 
our  work.  (In  hindsight,  he  laughed  at  some  of 
them.) 

I  remember  in  particular  the  good  advice  he 
gave  me  at  the  first  national  SL  conference  after 
he  found  out  that  I  was  doing  work  among  black 
workers  in  the  South.  He  told  me  that  in  addition 
to  having  a  revolutionary  program,  because  of  the 
history  of  segregation,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
find  ways  of  achieving  social  interaction  with  my 
black  coworkers.  He  suggested  that  if  necessary, 
join  clubs  or  associations  where  one  could  estab- 
lish these  kind  of  relationships,  but  that  I  would 
have  to  find  out  how  to  do  it  in  my  own  way.  It 
was  good  advice  on  his  part,  as  we  have  learned 
from  doing  communist  work  among  the  black 
working  class  in  the  Deep  South. 

This  example  is  probably  a  small  thing  by 


itself,  but  the  total  of  Dick's  work,  in  particular 
his  work  on  the  black  question,  is  a  valuable  con- 
tribution to  Trotskyism. 

Message  from  the  Chicago  Spartacist  League, 

Spartacus  Youth  Club  and  Chicago  Labor  Black 
Struggle  League 

Long  service  and  tenacity  as  a  partisan  of  the 
working  class  and  oppressed  demand  the  greatest 
admiration  and  respect  from  we  who  come  after. 
His  contribution  to  be  realized  in  the  struggle  for 
black  liberation  and  proletarian  power  that  will 
be  the  American  socialist  revolution. 

Frank  Krasnowsky 

a  longtime  comrade  of  Dick's  who  collaborated 
with  him  for  over  20  years  in  the  Seattle  branch  of 
the  Socialist  Workers  Party  and  the  Freedom  So- 
cialist Party,  and  as  editor  of  Revolutionary  Age 

We've  got  all  these  young  people  up  here 
today.  I'd  like  to  thank  you  for  the  invitation  to 
speak  here,  and  particularly  I  want  to  thank  those 
of  you  who  took  care  of  Dick  in  these  last  years, 
and  made  his  last  years  so  productive  and  as 
pleasant  as  possible. 

When  I  was  asked  to  speak,  I  was  kind  of 
pleased  with  the  idea  that  I  would  finally  get  a 
chance  to  get  even  with  all  those  people  who 
ignored  Dick  over  all  the  years,  you  know.  And 
I  worked  out  a  wonderful  talk  that  I  was  going  to 
give  down  here.  I  was  going  to  go  through  the 
whole  history  of  his  ideas  and  present  them  to 
you  here.  And  talk  a  little  about  the  way  he 
worked  with  others  and  confronted  with  others, 
to  talk  a  little  bit  about  the  way  I  and  Clara  Fra- 
ser  and  the  Seattle  branch  worked  together  with 
him  in  developing  his  ideas.  Then  after  all  that  I 
was  told  that  I  should  try  to  keep  it  to  ten 
minutes.  So  you  don't  know  how  lucky  you  all 
are  here  today. 

No,  I'm  not  really  going  to  talk  too  much 
about  the  contents  of  his  writings,  because  those 
are  all  available.  We've  printed  them  out,  particu- 
larly in  two  publications  which  I  edited,  in  the 
Revolutionary  Age,  in  the  work  "Revolutionary 
Integration,"  and  "Crisis  and  Leadership,"  which 
were  the  major  works  we  published. 

I'd  rather  talk  a  little  bit  on  the  way  Dick 
worked,  that  is  how  he  managed  to  enrich  his 
own  ideas  and  to  test  them  in  the  class  struggle, 
and  to  help  others  develop  their  own  thinking 
and  their  own  understanding.  Dick,  as  you  know, 
and  as  has  been  described  here  to  you,  was  never 
what  you'd  call  an  ivory  tower  radical.  He  was  a 


12 


constant  activist.  But  he  used  all  the  material  on 
hand,  both  in  the  form  of  data  and  the  knowledge 
and  experience  of  others  in  developing  his  own 
ideas.  He  was  particularly  astute  in  drawing  peo- 
ple out  and  getting  them  to  express  their  ideas 
and  in  trying  to  get  his  ideas  over  to  them. 

It  wasn't  mentioned  here,  but  Dick  for  a  cou- 
ple of  years  worked  as  an  engineer  at  Weyer- 
haeuser in  Seattle.  Now  you  know  he  didn't  have 
a  college  degree  or  anything,  but  one  of  the  peo- 
ple who  worked  with  him,  who  was  a  doctor  in 
physics  at  the  University,  said  that  he  thought 
that  Dick  was  the  greatest  engineer  that  he  ever 
met.  And  I  asked  Dick,  "How'd  you  get  a  reputa- 
tion like  that?" 

Well,  what  happened  is,  if  he  ever  had  a 
problem  or  a  puzzle,  he  would  head  straight  for 
the  University  of  Washington,  talk  to  all  the  pro- 
fessors who  were  involved  in  that  field,  bring 
together  all  their  knowledge,  and  then  use  it.  This 
was  a  great  talent.  And  he'd  use  that  same  talent, 
of  course,  as  a  Marxist  thinker  and  a  writer.  In 
this  respect  he  received,  I  would  say,  constant 
help  from  our  Seattle  branch  and  of  many  indi- 
vidual comrades  in  Los  Angeles  and  throughout 
the  country. 

This  may  step  on  some  people's  toes,  but  I 
have  to  say  it  anyway— he  got  almost  no  help  from 
the  official  party  to  which  he  had  devoted  his 
entire  life.  Neither  in  the  form  of  support  for  his 
ideas  on  black  liberation,  nor  what  would  have 
been  important  for  him  as  well,  in  the  form  of  an 
honest  confrontation  of  ideas.  In  1957  when  the 
Southern  movement  was  first  beginning  to  break 
out,  and  when  his  ideas  were  getting  their  first 
real  test  in  life,  we  went  to  the  '57  convention  of 
the  Socialist  Workers  Party  with  a  resolution  and 
were  answered,  rather  strangely,  with  a  demand 
by  the  National  Committee  that  we  provide  a  vote 
of  confidence  in  the  National  Committee  in 
opposition  to  his  resolution.  I  had  never  heard 
that  before  in  the  party. 

Again  in  '63,  where  we  put  together  all  of  the 
experiences  of  the  Southern  movement,  we  came 
in  with  the  resolution  and  for  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  the  party,  equal  time  was  not  provided 
to  the  opposition.  There  was  an  hour  and  a  half 
given  to  the  majority,  a  half  hour  given  to  Dick's 
position  and  to  our  position,  and  the  bulk  of  the 
discussion  consisted  of  an  organizational  attack 
upon  our  branch.  And  finally  in  '65  when  we 
presented  the  document,  it  was  called  "Crisis  and 
Leadership."  After  it  was  all  over  we  received 
instructions  from  the  presidium  not  to  discuss  any 


of  the  political  material  presented,  and  transform- 
ing the  conference  into  an  active  workers  confer- 
ence. Now  there  was  in  that  no  confrontation  of 
ideas,  no  way  that  he  could  draw  from  any  of 
that. 

Fortunately,  there  were  better  places  for  him 
to  develop  his  ideas  and  his  inspiration.  Dick  took 
every  opportunity  that  was  offered  to  him  to  talk 
and  discuss  with  revolutionary  black  leaders  his 
ideas  on  revolutionary  integration.  Anybody  who 
came  to  the  Northwest  got  stuck,  that  is  about 
what  it  came  down  to.  Maybe  there  was  one  or 
two  of  us  who  would  talk  to  them  in  the  after- 
noon, but  by  the  time  it  was  over  they  were  over 
at  Dick's  for  ten  to  twelve  hours  and  all  night 
long,  discussing  and  talking.  And  I'm  not  talking 
just  about  this  or  this  Joe,  it  didn't  matter  to  Dick 
who  he  talked  to,  but  among  the  people  who  he 
caught  were  William  Worthy,  James  Farmer, 
Gibson,  Victoria  Gray  of  the  Mississippi  Freedom 
Democratic  Party,  Robert  Williams. 

I  can't  recall  all  that  were  there,  but  we  had 
a  session  with  Dick  Gregory  in  which  together  we 
organized  a  whole  meeting  in  the  black  com- 
munity, of  a  very  conservative  black  community, 
in  support  of  the  Southern  struggle.  Dick  could 
talk  with  him.  And  these  weren't  just  little  dis- 
cussions, they  were  a  complete  confrontation  of 
ideas,  one  to  the  other,  in  which  he  hoped  to 
teach  and  he  hoped  to  learn.  And  I  don't  remem- 
ber any  of  them  ever  being  angry  about  having 
participated  in  it. 

But  I'll  tell  you,  visitors  could  escape  with 
maybe  ten  or  twelve  hours  of  discussion.  That 
wasn't  true  of  the  rest  of  us  in  the  branch.  In 
Seattle  we  had  a  man  named  Waymon  Ware.  He 
was  a  young  man  then,  of  course.  Waymon  Ware 
was  probably  the  leading  person  in  the  black 
movement  in  Seattle.  He  was  also  a  member  of 
our  group.  And  Dick  was  constantly  in  conversa- 
tion with  Skip  Ware.  And  his  wife,  who  was  not 
in  our  organization  but  was  a  leading  community 
activist,  also  suffered,  enjoyably,  constant  probing 
and  discussions  of  her  ideas. 

And  not  only,  and  this  may  strike  people  as 
some  kind  of  a  violation  of  some  myths  about 
democratic  centralism,  but  not  only  did  he  con- 
front them  with  his  ideas,  but  our  document  that 
was  in  preparation,  called  "Revolutionary  Integra- 
tion," was  carried  by  these  people  into  the  South 
for  their  discussion.  The  columns  appeared  in 
SNCC  and  in  the  Mississippi  Freedom  Democratic 
Party.  They  were  sent  out  so  people  could  study 
them,  to  look  at  it,  write  back  to  him,  so  we 


13 


could  build  up  our  resolution  with  people  who 
were  serious  about  our  ideas. 

But  ideas  alone  do  not  make  a  Marxist  move- 
ment, or  a  Marxist  theory.  You  have  to  take  your 
ideas  and  put  them  into  life,  to  test  them,  to 
reformulate,  so  that  you  know  your  ideas  are 
rooted  solidly  in  Marxism  at  the  same  time  that 
they  deal  with  all  of  the  newest  and  most  modern 
developments  in  society.  The  Seattle  branch  of 
the  Socialist  Workers  Party  took  every  oppor- 
tunity it  could  to  participate  in  the  black  libera- 
tion movement.  I'm  not  going  to  go  into  now 
what  had  happened  before  Dick  came,  but  we 
were  very  active  when  he  arrived.  But  in  the  '60s 
we  were  already  central  to  the  whole  organiza- 
tion of  the  Student  Nonviolent  Coordinating 
Committee.  We  were  involved  in  the  training  of 
cadres,  we  helped  send  people  down.  In  fact,  one 
of  the  announcements  we  got  from  the  South, 
from  the  people  who  were  participating,  was  that 
the  people  from  the  Northwest  were  those  best 
equipped  mentally  to  participate  in  the  struggle 
down  there. 

Incidentally,  we  also  sent  two  people  down 
from  the  Seattle  branch,  one  our  only  Spartacist 
member,  and  I  think  you  may  know  of  that 
around  here  somewhere,  who  spent  about  six 
months  at  least  in  the  South  during  that  period. 
We  didn't  discriminate  in  the  branch,  if  different 
political  opinions,  if  they  were  helping  to  build 
the  organization.  So  that  even  those  in  the  end 
who  weren't  in  the  SWP  and  who  went  down  to 
the  South  that  were  not  in  our  organization  came 
back  with  the  experience  that  we  provided  them, 
with  the  knowledge  we  provided  them,  and  added 
a  new  mass  of  experience  for  the  development  of 
our  ideas  for  the  next  cadres  that  could  go  down 
and  carry  out  the  fight. 

I'm  going  to  tell  you  a  little  story.  I  don't 
think  anybody  knows  this  here.  But  in  1964  for 
the  Democratic  Convention  in  Atlantic  City,  my 
former  wife  Ann  Krasnowsky  took  a  carload,  actu- 
ally it  was  a  van,  of  black  women  and  SNCC  lead- 
ers to  the  convention,  with  a  resolution  for  the 
Mississippi  Freedom  Democratic  Party,  which  con- 
demned the  whole  racist  role  of  the  Democratic 
Party  in  the  South,  and  called  for  the  unseating 
of  the  Mississippi  Democratic  white  delegation 
and  the  Alabama  delegation.  And  I  want  to  tell 
you,  we  were  a  little  surprised  when  we  heard 
over  the  radio  that  almost  precisely  the  wording 
of  his  resolution  was  presented  by  the  black  cau- 
cus at  that  convention. 

Now,  this  is  just  an  inkling,  I'm  not  going  to 


go  on  too  far,  of  the  kinds  of  experience  and 
work  that  went  into  the  concepts  that  Dick 
presented  and  developed  in  our  movement.  The 
rejection  of  which  I  can  say  quite  bluntly,  since 
it  involved  the  rejection  really  of  the  revolution 
in  the  United  States,  led  very  much  to  the  degen- 
eration of  the  organization  that  we  built  earlier, 
of  the  Socialist  Workers  Party. 

And  one  last  thing  in  conclusion.  In  the  '60s, 
I  had  a  little  talk  with  Jim  Cannon.  I'm  just  drop- 
ping names  now.  Actually,  I  didn't  know  Jim  that 
well,  he  was  a  different  generation  than  mine. 
Actually  it  was  something  which  I  realize  now 
was  something  that  bothered  me  much  more  than 
it  bothered  him.  But  every  time  I  came  through 
Los  Angeles,  we'd  have  coffee,  Ann  and  I,  at  his 
house,  and  have  a  little  discussion  for  several 
hours  with  him  and  Rose  [Karsner].  And  this  time 
he  was  sitting  there  and  studying  two  books.  One 
was  a  book  by  James  Boggs,  The  American  Revolu- 
tion, and  the  other  was  Harrington's  The  Other 
America.  And  he  commented  to  us,  "Why  is  it  that 
two  non-Marxist  writers  can  write  a  brilliant 
analysis  of  what  is  going  on  in  the  United  States 
in  the  nature  of  class  relations,  and  even  propose 
a  political  program,  and  the  pages  of  our  maga- 
zine, the  Fourth  International,  are  completely 
sterile?" 

Well,  it  was  a  rhetorical  question,  but  I 
decided  I'd  try  to  answer  it  anyway.  And  I  said, 
well,  if  you  really  want  to  get  original  thinking 
in  the  SWP,  you're  going  to  have  to  read  the 
internal  bulletins.  And  that  was  about  the  way  it 
appeared  to  me.  That  many  of  the  people  who 
had  been  studying  and  thinking  had  been  sup- 
pressed by  what  I  considered  a  sort  of  a  bureau- 
cratic centralism,  not  democratic,  in  which  people 
with  all  kinds  of  ideas  found  that  they  didn't  have 
a  way  to  express  their  opinions.  And  I  really  think 
that  that's  one  of  the  great  tragedies  of  the 
movement. 

I  have  some  optimism  out  of  this  whole  meet- 
ing. I  will  say  that  I  came  down  here  a  little 
depressed,  and  much  of  that  is  overcome  already 
by  the  people  here.  But  I  think  that  the  great 
tragedy  really  of  the  movement  in  the  past  is  not 
just  that  we  lost  for  a  while,  because  we  can  win 
again.  But  the  number  of  fine  minds,  fine  think- 
ing and  the  rest  that  have  not  found  the  way  to 
express  themselves,  that  got  confined  in  this  myth 
that  everybody  must  hold  the  monolithic  idea  and 
not  open  criticism,  and  not  think  about  things 
anymore.  The  party  should  be,  an  organization  of 
the  left  should  be  an  extra  group  that  strengthens 


14 


your  ideas,  that  builds  you,  that  makes  you  better 
able  to  deal  with  the  class  struggle  as  you  go  on. 
It's  for  that  reason  that  I  truly  thank  the  peo- 
ple who  organized  this  memorial,  who  are  part  of 
an  organization  with  which  I  have  had  many  dif- 
ferences, but  then  I  can't  think  of  one  that  I  didn't 
have  many  differences  with,  if  you  want  to  get 
down  to  it.  But  at  least  for  rescuing  from  extinc- 
tion the  work  of  one  of  the  truly  great  Marxists 
and  Trotskyists  of  our  era,  and  for  helping  him  to 
live  and  last  as  long  as  he  was  able,  and  to  make 
new  contributions  in  the  struggle  for  which  he 
lived.  Thank  you. 

Statement  of  the  Central  Committee  of  the  Spar- 
tacist  League/Britain,  section  of  the  interna- 
tional Spartacist  tendency  [after  May  1 989  called 
the  International  Communist  League  (Fourth 
Internationalist)] 

Comrades, 

We  would  like  to  add  our  salute  to  the 
memory  of  comrade  Dick  Fraser.  A  number  of  us 
had  the  honour  of  meeting  comrade  Fraser,  which 
serves  to  underline  our  deep  sense  of  loss.  We 
stand  on  the  shoulders  of  those  who  have  gone 
before  us.  As  Marxists  and  internationalists  we 
deeply  appreciate  the  work  he  did,  in  particular 
"For  the  Materialist  Conception  of  the  Negro 
Question."  This  contribution  is  not  narrowly  con- 
fined to  enunciating  the  crucial  elements  for 
black  freedom  in  the  United  States  through  the 
programme  of  revolutionary  integration.  By  clar- 
ifying a  Marxist  methodological  approach,  he 
aided  us  in  building  our  international  on  a  firm 
basis.  Our  capacity  to  address  the  national 
question  and  situations  such  as  Ireland  where  the 
problem  of  interpenetrated  peoples  must  be  con- 
fronted owes  a  great  deal  to  the  Bolsheviks,  but 
also  to  such  contributions  as  comrade  Dick's. 

Comrade  Fraser  already  has  an  epitaph  in  his 
contributions,  and  we  are  sure  that  he,  like  any 
revolutionary,  would  feel  his  memory  can  best  be 
honoured  by  carrying  the  work  forward  for  world 
revolution. 

Message  of  the  Trotzkistische  Liga  Deutsch- 

lands  [now  the  Spartakist  Arbeiterpartei  Deutsch- 
lands]  and  the  Ligue  Trotskyste  de  France, 

sections  of  the  international  Spartacist  tendency 

We  share  with  you  the  loss  of  anti-racist 
fighter  and  historic  American  Trotskyist  Richard 
Fraser.  In  January  we  also  honor  the  "Three  L's," 


Lenin,  and  Liebknecht  and  Luxemburg  who  were 
murdered  70  years  ago  this  year.  In  so  doing  we 
pay  tribute  to  all  those,  like  Comrade  Fraser,  who 
died  at  their  posts,  fighting  for  a  socialist  future. 

Dave  Dreiser 

a  friend  and  comrade  of  Dick's  who  knew  him  for 
many  years 

Before  I  make  a  few  remarks  about  Dick,  I 
feel  deeply  constrained  to  make  some  related 
comments.  Several  years  ago,  Dick  became  be- 
friended, very  deeply  and  very  meaningfully,  by 
the  comrades  of  the  Spartacist  League  and  espe- 
cially, although  not  exclusively,  those  in  their  Los 
Angeles  group.  Without  this  help  that  they  gave 
him,  Dick  would  not  have  been  able  to  have 
maintained  his  life,  more  or  less  normal,  within 
the  constraints  of  his  physical  condition,  living  in 
his  own  apartment  with  his  library,  his  correspon- 
dence, his  telephone  and  his  word  processor. 
They  took  him  to  the  hospital,  they  took  him 
back  from  the  hospital.  They  provided  medical 
consultation.  They  helped  him  with  his  household 
arrangements. 

Finally,  four  days  before  he  died,  when  he 
made  his  last  trip  home  from  the  hospital,  they 
provided  a  24-hour-a-day,  three-shift  guard  at  his 
house,  helping  him  with  his  feeding  apparatus, 
helping  him  with  the  difficult  life  that  he  was  liv- 
ing then  in  his  last  hours  and  last  days.  They  did 
this  with  no  hope  or  any  intent  of  any  profit,  or 
any  political  gain.  They  did  it  because  it  was  the 
honorable  thing  to  do.  And  they  did  it  with  con- 
siderable difficulty.  I  don't  want  to  give  away  any 
trade  secrets,  but  they're  not  a  large  group  in  this 
town.  And  these  people  have  other  lives  to  live, 
they  have  jobs,  they  have  family,  and  they  have 
other  responsibilities.  But  with  total  loyalty  and 
total  devotion,  they  performed  these  duties.  And 
I  just  felt  I  had  to  express  this  here. 

Dick  Fraser  was  a  musician,  a  merchant  sea- 
man, an  aircraft  worker,  a  lumber  worker,  pattern 
maker,  plastic  mold  maker,  working-class.  He 
never  had  a  middle-class  job  in  his  whole  life.  He 
made  his  living  as  a  worker  and  no  other  way. 
But  more,  Dick  was  a  restless  organizer,  an  invet- 
erate propagandist,  a  "boss-hater"  in  the  Wobbly 
tradition,  and  still  more.  He  was  a  socialist  and 
a  worker-scholar  in  the  finest  tradition.  You 
study,  you  learn,  and  you  teach. 

He  studied  the  Reformation,  gave  a  series  of 
lectures  in  Los  Angeles.  He  studied  the  colonial 
period  of  American  history,  and  gave  a  series  of 


15 


lectures,  perceptive,  revealing.  How  the  Indians 
taught  the  colonists  to  survive,  gave  them  not 
only  the  technology  but  the  communal  social 
organization  which  was  necessary  to  the  continu- 
ance of  their  existence.  He  went  to  Seattle, 
organized  a  branch.  Went  to  the  south  side  of  Los 
Angeles,  organized  a  branch. 

He  studied  about  the  rise  and  fall  of  the  slave 
power  in  the  United  States  and  about  the  Recon- 
struction period.  And  he  asked  the  question,  how 
did  the  race  relations  in  the  United  States  today 
originate?  What  was  their  connection  with  the 
slave  system  and  its  aftermath?  The  Old  Man 
[Trotsky]  said,  if  you  don't  want  to  regard  the 
issue  of  black  liberation  as  a  national  question, 
then  determine  what  it  is.  Dick  struggled  with 
that  question.  As  before,  he  studied,  then  gave  a 
series  of  lectures,  in  Los  Angeles  in  1953.  The 
elaboration  of  this  question  became  his  life's 
work.  He  codified  his  thoughts  in  the  resolution 
"Revolutionary  Integration"  in  1963  in  Seattle. 
His  work  on  this  question  has  been  republished 
and  forms  the  programmatic  basis  of  the  Sparta- 
cist  League  and  other  sections  of  the  Trotskyist 
movement  today. 

In  later  years,  Dick  turned  back  to  the  history 
of  the  slave  power  and  the  struggle  against  slav- 
ery, and  has  authored  a  book,  in  the  form  of 
abstracts.  He  also  authored  his  autobiography, 
mainly  a  study  of  his  long  struggle  with  cancer 
and  the  after  effects  of  the  debilitating  surgery 
which  he  underwent.  "How  I  Came  to  Love  My 
Carcinoma"  is  a  tale  of  dark  humor,  pathos  and 
tragedy. 

Dick  was  a  speaker  and  an  educator,  first  and 
foremost.  And  to  have  been  handicapped  in  his 
speech  was  the  crudest  of  blows.  But  to  the  last 
day  of  his  life  Dick  remained  optimistic,  fretting 
over  his  illness  but  planning  the  continuation  of 
his  work  on  slavery.  As  little  as  four  days  before 
he  died,  he  was  discussing  these  issues. 

Well,  there  were  other  sides  to  Dick,  personal 
sides,  his  undying  love  for  his  son  Jonny,  which 
he  constantly  expressed.  The  inventions,  that  by 
the  patent  laws  of  the  United  States  were  stolen 
by  his  employer,  but  were  of  considerable  sig- 
nificance. His  undying  love  of  music  and  knowl- 
edge of  it.  You  may  not  know  it,  he  was  even  a 
little  bit  of  a  card  player.  We'll  reserve  those 
topics  for  informal  discussion.  We  are  left  with 
the  memory  of  a  worker,  a  rebel,  a  restless  organ- 
izer, speaker,  worker-scholar.  And  we  have  to  say 
good-bye  to  our  old  friend.  The  world's  a  poorer 
place  without  him. 


Greetings  to  the  memorial  meeting  from  the 
Spartacist  Group  of  Japan,  dated  18 
December  1988 


We  join  you  today  in  honoring  the  life  of 
Richard  S.  Fraser,  a  "historic  American  Trotskyist" 
and  a  tenacious  fighter  for  black  liberation. 
Although  few  of  us  knew  Comrade  Fraser  person- 
ally, we  salute  his  years  of  struggle  against  the 
special  oppression  of  blacks  in  North  America  and 
his  unique  contributions  to  a  Marxist  understand- 
ing of  how  to  end  it. 

The  black  question  is  the  question  of  the 
American  revolution.  Comrade  Fraser's  historic 
1955  document,  "For  the  Materialist  Conception 
of  the  Negro  Question,"  is  a  sharp  refutation  of 
black  nationalism  and  all  its  variants  in  favor  of 
revolutionary  integrationism.  This  conception 
lives  on  today  in  our  American  comrades'  work  to 
build  Labor  Black  Leagues  in  the  major  urban 
centers.  Our  most  recent  victory  in  stopping  a  fas- 
cist provocation  in  Philadelphia  on  5  November 
1988  was  a  powerful  display  of  the  black  and  red 
social  components  that  will  lead  the  third  Ameri- 
can revolution. 

Richard  Fraser's  major  work,  centering  on  a 
Marxist  perspective  to  end  the  vicious  oppression 
of  blacks  in  the  U.S.,  has  important  ramifications 
internationally.  Here  in  Japan,  we  seek  to  build 
a  party  that  sees  its  workers  revolution  ending 
the  centuries  of  women's  oppression  as  well  as 
the  institutionalized  discrimination  against  Kore- 
ans, Chinese,  Japan's  indigenous  minorities,  the 
Ainu  and  burakumin,  and  the  Japanese  bourgeoi- 
sie's newest  victims,  immigrant  labor  from  the 
Philippines  and  Southeast  Asia. 

Dick  Fraser's  insistence  that  only  a  proletar- 
ian revolution  can  end  the  horrid  plight  of  cap- 
italism's oppressed  minorities  is  an  important 
component  of  the  international  Spartacist  ten- 
dency's program  today.  From  the  other  side  of  the 
Pacific  we  embrace  our  American  comrades  who 
have  lost  a  "cherished  friend  and  theoretical 
mentor." 


Sam  Hunt 

a  comrade  of  the  international  Spartacist  tendency 
who  sent  the  following  letter 

Dear  comrades  and  friends, 

Like  all  of  you,  I  was  saddened  to  hear  about 
Dick  Fraser's  death.  I  am  grateful  that  I  knew 


16 


Dick  pretty  well  during  the  last  years  of  his  life. 
I  first  met  Dick  in  a  hospital  room  in  Long  Beach 
in  1981,  but  also  spent  a  good  deal  of  time  with 
him  when  he  was  home  and  lucid  as  hell.  I  would 
often  stop  at  Dick's  apartment  on  my  way  home 
from  work  when  I  lived  in  L.A.  He  lived  near 
Hollywood  Park  and  the  horse  races  that  he 
loved.  It  was  here  that  I  received  an  education  on 
life  in  the  SWP  in  the  1940s  and  '50s.  Trotskyist 
leaders,  especially  black  leaders  like  C.L.R.  James 
and  Edgar  Keemer,  became  far  more  than  histor- 
ical names. 

The  height  of  black  recruitment  to  the  Ameri- 
can Trotskyist  movement  came  during  WWII  when 
the  Stalinists  and  social  democrats  betrayed  the 
fight  against  Jim  Crow.  The  SWP's  courageous 
stand  for  black  civil  rights  during  the  war  had  a 
profound  impact  on  Dick  who  lived  through  these 
events.  When  the  SWP  veered  on  a  black  nation- 
alist course  Dick  fought  hard  against  this  anti- 
Marxist  stance  and  this  culminated  in  his  historic 
1955  document.  Dick's  interest  in  this  question 
was  no  idle  intellectual  venture  but  a  life-long 
commitment  to  black  liberation. 

The  Workers  Vanguard  article  about  Richard's 
death  importantly  notes  that  his  last  political  act 
was  to  endorse  our  Partisan  Defense  Committee 
rally  to  stop  a  KKK  provocation  in  Philadelphia  on 
November  5th.  This  is  very  special  to  me,  as  the 
day  Dick  endorsed  our  demonstration  was  also 
the  last  time  I  saw  him  alive.  While  weak  and 
resting  in  bed,  he  was  quite  animated  in  his 
desire  to  get  a  full  report  on  what  was  going  on. 
He  followed  the  events  leading  to  the  November 
5th  demonstration  very  carefully  and  in  his  last 
days  the  fire  of  class  struggle  still  burned  in  his 
eyes.  I  had  many  disagreements  with  Dick  over 
the  years  but  our  WV  obituary  underlined  our 
bending  the  stick  in  the  direction  of  our  program- 
matic agreements.  Dick's  endorsement  of  our 
November  5th  demonstration  in  Philadelphia 
epitomizes  this  agreement  and  I'm  glad  Dick  died 
with  his  boots  on. 

In  closing,  I  have  to  commend  my  comrades 
and  friends  in  L.A.  who  worked  tirelessly  to  pro- 
long this  valuable  communist's  life  and  I'm  glad 
I  could  help  this  effort.  I'm  sorry  I  can't  be  with 
you  today  and  must  pay  my  respects  from  afar. 
Dick's  exemplary  struggle  to  overcome  his 
debilitating  physical  ailments  gives  new  meaning 
to  the  words  courage  and  tenacity.  Dick  was  a 
communist  to  the  end  and  I'm  going  to  miss  his 
sense  of  humor  and  zest  for  life.  He  was  my 
friend  and  I'll  never  forget  him. 


Jim  Robertson 

National  Chairman  of  the  Spartacist  League  of  the 
U.S. 

Like  comrade  Frank  Krasnowsky,  I,  too, 
would  be  happy  to  take  about  30  minutes  on  the 
technicalities  of  the  decomposition  of  the  SWP 
until  it  ends  up  as  a  Barnesite  organization.  But 
I,  too,  am  bound  by  the  ten-minute  limit. 

I  first  ran  into  Dick  Fraser  about  31  years 
ago,  and  he  was  my  last  personal  teacher.  Frank 
has  mentioned  what  happened  in  Seattle  when 
you  got  around  Dick  Fraser.  Well,  I  stayed  at  his 
house,  so  I  got  it  day  and  night! 

But  it  came  at  just  the  right  time,  because 
our  theoretical  mentors,  the  both  of  us,  he  of  an 
earlier  generation  than  me,  had  been  formed  out 
of  the  arguments  that  C.L.R.  James,  Jimmy  John- 
son that  is,  and  E.R.  McKinney  had  been  having 
in  the  SWP  and  in  the  Shachtman  Workers  Party 
then.  I  could  not  understand  how  black  national- 
ism could  be  analogous  with  a  European  national 
oppressed  minority.  And  having  broken  with  the 
Shachtmanites,  and  even  before  that,  I  knew  that 
there  was  something  terribly  wrong,  simply  look- 
ing at  the  history  and  reality  of  American  social 
relations,  with  the  idea  that  a  kind  of  militant 
reformism  was  going  to  eliminate  the  race 
question  in  America. 

So  I  was  really  quite  ready  to  run  into  com- 
rade Fraser's  presentation  and  historical  founda- 
tion, that  one  can  achieve  the  abolition  of  racial 
division  in  this  country  only  through  a  profound, 
pervasive,  far-going  social  revolution  in  which  the 
working  class  comes  to  power.  So  I  walked  away 
quite  thoroughly  recruited.  And  with  some,  I 
think,  continuing  personal  affection  throughout 
the  rest  of  those  years  between  us. 

This  led  me  to  think  in  preparing  to  talk  here 
today,  why  Fraser?  I  can  offer  some  elements,  but 
I  also  have  a  suggestion,  because  it's  rather  soon 
and  we  only  have  some  of  his  papers  available. 
Perhaps  on  the  first  anniversary  of  his  death  we 
could  have  a  symposium  on  his  central  political 
thought,  its  development,  in  the  context  of  his 
life  and  his  work.  I  will  offer  a  few  ideas  about 
how  it  is  that  this  particular  man  in  a  given  set 
of  circumstances  could  make  what  I  consider  to 
be  a  fundamental  contribution  to  the  program  of 
Marxism,  growing  out  of  the  particularities  of  the 
American  racial  relations  rather  than  national 
relations. 

I  don't  think  that  comrade  Fraser  could  have 
done  this  work  if  he  hadn't  been  a  Trotskyist. 


17 


Because  if  his  head  had  been  filled  with  ideas  of 
"socialism  in  one  country,"  or  support  for  bour- 
geois political  formations,  which  were  character- 
istic of  the  other  socialist  groups,  it  would  not 
have  been  possible.  In  a  striking  way,  C.L.R. 
James  had  a  great  influence  when  he  arrived  in 
the  United  States  in  1939,  evoking  also  a  reaction 
and  a  certain  paralysis,  theoretically,  on  the  part 
of  the  SWP. 

Then  Fraser  spent  four  or  five  years  in  the 
National  Maritime  Union.  The  SWP's  cadres  were 
concentrated  in  the  Sailors  Union  of  the  Pacific 
[SUP],  which  was  completely  racially  exclu- 
sionary, unlike  the  National  Maritime  Union.  And 
yet  Dick  was  very  prominent  in  the  NMU.  This 
contrast  in  the  work  of  the  two  fractions  obvi- 
ously had  to  be  a  source  of  stimulation  and 
thought. 

Finally,  I  believe  that  he  was  a  genuine 
native  genius.  And  I  think  that  somewhere  in  this 
matrix  you  will  find  the  start  of  the  process  that 
took  several  years  to  percolate  and  really  only 
came  into  fully  rounded  form  in  the  early  '50s.  By 
the  later  '50s,  beginning  with  the  Little  Rock  cri- 
sis, when  Eisenhower  sent  the  troops  to  the  South 
and  the  SWP  said,  Hail  the  American  troops  to 
the  South,  they're  going  to  be  the  saviors— already 
a  major  political  departure— I  think  that  the  first 
theoretical  verification  of  Fraser's  views  had  been 
obtained. 

A  few  other  remarks.  Dick  Fraser  is  supposed 
to  have  said,  "One  of  the  best  things  I  ever  did  in 
my  life  was  sit  Jim  Robertson  down  at  a  kitchen 
table  and  pound  at  him  for  a  few  nights."  Well, 
it's  funny,  because  I'd  just  said,  across  the  country 
at  the  same  time,  "The  last  guy  that  ever  con- 
vinced me  of  anything  in  an  argument  was  Dick 
Fraser."  That  does  not  mean  that  program  is  fin- 
ished. There's  an  exchange  between  Cannon  and 
Shachtman  to  that  effect.  Cannon  is  supposed  to 
have  said,  "We  have  a  finished  program,"  and 
Shachtman  said,  "Yeah,  it's  finished." 

I  believe  that  through  time  that  program  must 
change  and  develop,  even  though  I  believe  that 
very  little  that  is  fundamental  can  change  within 
the  framework  of  capitalism  since  it  took  its 
essential  shape  in  1848.  But  I  believe  that  com- 
rade Fraser  is  one  of  those  who  found  a  particular 
set  of  conditions  in  the  North  American  continent 
and  made  a  Marxian,  materialist  analysis  of  it. 

I  would  also  like  to  note  that  comrade  Fraser 
received,  on  arriving  in  L.A.  after  Seattle,  in  a 
pretty  battle-fatigued  condition,  a  great  deal  of 
fellowship  from  the  NAM  (New  American  Move- 


ment), later  the  DSA,  and  especially  from  Dorothy 
Healey,  who  helped  him  a  great  deal.  And  I 
believe  that  this  understandably  slowed  down  his 
approchement  with  the  SL,  although  we  had  been 
in  loose  association  with  many  disagreements  for 
a  long  time,  comrade  Fraser  even  having  attended 
our  founding  conference  in  1966.  See,  I  could 
take  off  now  about  the  SWP,  Tom  Kerry  and 
those  guys  and  what  they  did,  but  I  really  don't 
have  time  for  that. 

Most  of  my  other  few  remarks  have  already 
been  picked  up  by  others.  I  think  that  comrade 
Fraser  found  a  great  deal  of  satisfaction  in  offer- 
ing guidance  and  advice,  especially  with  the 
Labor  Black  Leagues  sprouting  around  the  coun- 
try, and  with  our  members  and  the  younger  com- 
rades in  general.  All  the  rest  of  my  notes  are 
more  of  that  polemical  stuff  that  I  think  is  histor- 
ically important,  but  not  now. 

Finally,  I  would  like  to  thank  those  who  have 
prepared  this  memorial,  who  worked  very  hard 
and  very  well,  and  also  the  materials  that  have 
gone  into  the  memorial  display.  A  very  good 
thing. 

Ed  Swabeck 

a  comrade  of  Dick's  who  worked  with  him  in  the 
SWP  and  its  maritime  work  and,  later,  on 
Revolutionary  Age 

The  first  time  I  met  Dick  Fraser  was  in  1941, 
when  I  got  to  the  coast  again  to  try  to  ship  out. 
Later  on,  on  the  East  Coast,  we— that  is,  Dick,  I 
and  many  other  Trotskyists— participated  in  a 
great  general  strike  in  maritime  of  1946. 

The  Seafarers  International  Union  objected 
to  the  buck-passing  of  the  ship  owners  and  the 
War  Shipping  Administration.  This  time  the 
former,  that  is  the  ship  owners,  wanted  to  give  in 
to  postwar  contractual  improvement  demands, 
but  the  latter,  the  War  Shipping  Administration, 
played  hard  cop. 

The  Manhattan  Center  meeting  hall  of  the 
general  strike  committee  of  all  the  unions 
involved  was  decorated  with  huge  banners, 
spread  right  across  the  damn  hall,  to  greet  the 
sailors  and  others  from  up  and  down  the  coast 
participating  in  this  meeting.  The  banners  said, 
"An  injury  to  one  is  an  injury  to  all!  United  we 
stand,  divided  we  fall!"  And  another  one,  "For 
collective  bargaining  and  against  government 
interference!" 

The  strike  of  AF  of  L  unions  was  general,  all 
right,  pulling  the  pin  with  the  seamen  and  their 
unions,  the  longies— the  longshoremen— tugboat, 


18 


all  maritime  trades,  and  railroad  men,  and  the 
Teamsters  too.  That  coast  was  bottled  up,  particu- 
larly the  island  of  Manhattan.  At  that  time  some 
of  the  sailors  around  said,  boy,  this  is  a  revolu- 
tionary situation!  Well,  many  of  us  thought,  we 
don't  know  if  we're  going  to  take  over  the  gov- 
ernment like  the  days  of  the  October  Revolution 
and  the  Bolshevik  October.  But  what  we  wanted 
to  do,  and  what  we  did,  and  what  was  achieved, 
was  to  give  the  War  Shipping  Administration,  the 
government's  outfit,  a  swift  kick  in  the  ass. 

The  ILA  [International  Longshoremen's  Asso- 
ciation], Marine  Firemen  and  SUP  held  the  fort 
in  the  Pacific  ports.  The  CIO  unions,  like  the 
NMU,  followed  later,  radical  socialists  of  the  rank 
and  file,  urging  towards  the  Debs  and  Wobblyite 
ideal  of  revolution.  And  make  no  mistake,  that 
was  led  by  Trotskyists,  such  as  Dick  Fraser  and 
like-minded  rank-and-file  Bolsheviks.  And  to 
carry— I  think  I  got  one  in  my  pocket  somewhere, 
that  I  dug  up  since  I  learned  about  this  meet- 
ing—to carry  that  strike  clearance  card,  the  gen- 
eral strike  clearance  of  1946.  I  carried  two  of 
them,  one  from  the  CIO  because  we  went,  a  lot 
of  comrades  went,  after  the  AF  of  L  was  out  on 
strike,  went  out  to  support  in  solidarity  with  the 
CIO  unions.  So  Dick  and  I  were  a  part  of  that 
scene,  and  I  wanted  to  mention  this  as  one  of  the 
big  achievements  of  the  Trotskyists'  maritime  frac- 
tion, comrades  like  Dick. 


Later  on,  on  the  West  Coast,  Dick  and  Arne 
Swabeck,  my  father,  collaborated  in  the  struggle 
for  a  revolutionary  workers  party  of  the  working 
class.  We  had  our  disagreements.  I  remember  I 
had  one  with  Dick  about  shipping,  it  was  about 
how  best  to  operate  a  ship,  run  an  old  liberty 
ship  without  popping  the  boilers  and  throwing 
the  safety  valves  all  over  the  place,  while  running 
the  U-boat  wolf  packs  down  in  the  torpedo  junc- 
tion. Well,  there  were  others.  They  were  all  set- 
tled through  democratic  centralism,  as  good  com- 
rades should.  And  I  say  this,  that  his  passing 
therefore  is  to  be  deeply  regretted. 

I  want  to  say  one  other  thing.  When  Dick 
came  around  to  the  house  a  couple  of  times,  I 
was  playing  music.  And  he  says,  "Damn  it,  have 
you  got  that  stuff  by  that  guy  that  plays  'The 
Lemon  Tree'?"  I  say,  "Oh,  you  mean  Herb 
Alpert?"  He  says,  "Yeah,  yeah,  yeah,  with  that 
'Tijuana  Taxi'  and  so  forth."  And  I  said  "Sure,  I'll 
play  it."  And  he  liked  that.  I  don't  know  if  he 
liked  the  music  that  we  were  playing  before,  that 
Brahms  thing  or  I  don't  know  what,  sort  of  sleepy 
funereal  kind  of  stuff.  I  know  damn  well  he  liked 
a  rousing  singing  of  the  Internationale*.  The  red, 
Bolshevik  Internationale] 


The  memorial  meeting  concluded  with  the 
singing  of  the  Internationale. 


Revolutionary  Integration: 
Program  for  Black  Liberation 

Introductory  Note  by  the  Prometheus  Research  Library 


When,  as  a  young  Trotskyist  activist,  Dick 
Fraser  became  convinced  that  American  Marxism 
had  not  come  to  terms  with  the  question  of  black 
liberation,  he  made  a  life-long  commitment  to 
study  of  the  question.  Although  he  was  hampered 
by  little  formal  scholarly  training,  his  Marxist 
understanding  and  his  broad  experience  in  mili- 
tant struggles  with  black  workers  sharpened  his 
insight  into  the  lessons  of  history.  His  dedicated 
study  sprang  from  his  conviction  that  in  order  to 
forge  a  program  for  black  liberation,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  study  the  social  forces  that  created  the 
American  institution  of  racial  oppression.  Fraser 
turned  to  the  writings  of  the  militant  fighters  for 
black  equality  during  the  Civil  War  and  Recon- 
struction and  to  the  pioneering  studies  by  black 
academics  such  as  E.  Franklin  Frazier  and  Oliver 
Cromwell  Cox.  To  Fraser,  understanding  the 
roots  of  black  oppression  in  the  United  States 
was  no  armchair  activity;  he  carried  his  theory  of 
Revolutionary  Integration  into  struggle. 

With  the  publication  of  this  bulletin  we  are 
honoring  Fraser's  fighting  scholarship.  In  the  past 
few  years  Trotskyism  has  lost  three  scholar-mili- 
tants from  the  generation  brought  to  revolution- 
ary consciousness  by  the  combative  class  strug- 
gles of  the  1930s.  George  Breitman,  who  died  in 
April  1986,  was  as  a  proponent  of  black  "self- 
determination"  Fraser's  main  political  opponent 
within  the  SWP  on  the  black  question.  He  was 
also  the  Pathfinder  Press  editor  responsible  for 
the  publication  of  the  works  of  Leon  Trotsky  and 
James  P.  Cannon.  And  in  July  1990  the  Trotsky 
scholar  Louis  Sinclair  died.  As  the  author  of  Leon 
Trotsky :  A  Bibliography  (Hoover  Institution  Press, 
1972),  Sinclair  performed  an  invaluable  service 
to  the  revolutionary  movement  in  documenting 
and  collecting  Trotsky's  writings  in  many  lan- 
guages. Now  the  tradition  of  revolutionary  schol- 
arship so  honorably  exemplified  by  Richard  Fra- 
ser, George  Breitman  and  Louis  Sinclair  must  be 
carried  on  by  a  new  generation  of  Marxists. 

The  U.S.  capitalist  class  and  its  minions 
would  like  to  forget  this  country's  modern  origins 
in  the  Second  American  Revolution  that  was  the 


Civil  War.  To  understand  the  Civil  War  is  to 
understand  the  character  of  U.S.  society  and  its 
fatal  flaw  of  racism.  As  Dave  Dreiser,  Fraser's 
long-time  collaborator  and  friend,  writes  in  his 
16  April  1990  letter  to  Jim  Robertson  (see  be- 
low), for  decades  the  academic  racists  of  the 
William  Dunning  school  of  U.S.  history  legiti- 
mized the  racist  status  quo.  Their  "interpreta- 
tion" was  popularized  in  the  movies  Birth  of  a 
Nation  and  Gone  With  the  Wind. 

The  outbreak  of  the  civil  rights  movement  in 
the  1950s  and  1960s  and  the  struggle  for  black 
equality  inspired  a  new  generation  of  historians, 
who  began  to  reexamine  central  issues  of  Amer- 
ican history,  in  particular  the  Civil  War  and 
Reconstruction.  The  distinguished  James  M.  Mc- 
Pherson,  author  of  Battle  Cry  of  Freedom:  The 
Civil  War  Era  and  The  Struggle  for  Equality: 
Abolitionists  and  the  Negro  in  the  Civil  War  and 
Reconstruction,  is  only  one  of  the  many  scholars 
who  have  documented  the  heroic  struggles  of 
this  revolutionary  period.  Eminent  scholars  who 
have  studied  southern  slavery,  the  Civil  War  and 
Reconstruction  also  include  Eugene  Genovese, 
Kenneth  Stampp,  C.  Vann  Woodward  and  Eric 
Foner. 

Today  the  empiricist/ racist  brand  of  "schol- 
arship" represented  by  Harvard  historian  Robert 
Fogel,  author  of  Time  on  the  Cross,  is  the  aca- 
demic reflection  of  the  American  ruling  class's 
renewed  war  on  the  black  population.  In  1965 
Daniel  Patrick  Moynihan,  then  an  assistant  secre- 
tary at  the  Department  of  Labor,  wrote  The  Negro 
Family:  The  Case  for  National  Action,  in  which  he 
outrageously  argued  that  the  "fundamental  prob- 
lem... of  family  structure"  was  responsible  for 
the  intensification  of  poverty,  joblessness, 
segregation  in  housing  and  lack  of  education 
suffered  by  the  masses  in  the  big  city  ghettoes. 
Bourgeois-empirical  sociology  (accompanied  by 
pages  of  charts  and  graphs)  served  to  provide  a 
pseudo-scientific  cover  for  the  old  "blame  the 
victim"  lies.  In  1970  Moynihan  coined  the  term 
"benign  neglect"  to  describe  the  federal  policy 
signalling  the  rollback  of  the  token  gains  of  the 


19 


20 


civil  rights  movement.  Federal  funding  for 
poverty  programs  dried  up;  the  government  un- 
der Nixon,  Carter  and  Reagan  dismantled  civil 
rights  legislation  and  destroyed  even  the  minimal 
plans  for  busing  to  achieve  school  integration. 

Dick  Fraser's  Marxist  scholarship  utterly  re- 
jected the  manipulation  of  history  to  justify  the 
racist  status  quo.  At  the  time  of  his  death  in  1988 
Fraser,  with  Dave  Dreiser,  was  actively  working 
on  notes  and  abstracts  for  a  book,  The  Rise  of  the 
Slave  Power,  the  result  of  over  40  years  of  study. 
The  book  was  to  be  a  Marxist  analysis  of  the  rise 
of  the  southern  slavocracy,  the  class  antagonisms 
which  exploded  in  the  1861-1865  Civil  War  be- 
tween the  capitalist  North  and  the  slave  South 
and  the  leading  role  of  the  militant  abolitionists 
in  the  destruction  of  black  chattel  slavery. 

While  his  primary  area  of  study  was  the 
black  question,  Dick  Fraser  was  active  in  many 
arenas  of  struggle.  In  selecting  the  documents  for 
this  bulletin  we  have  sought  to  show  the  breadth 
of  his  work.  Of  documents  omitted  from  this 
collection  there  are  two  worthy  of  special  note: 
"For  the  Materialist  Conception  of  the  Negro 
Question"  is  not  published  here  only  because  it 
is  readily  available  in  the  Spartacist  League's 
Marxist  Bulletin  No.  5R,  "What  Strategy  for  Black 
Liberation?  Trotskyism  vs.  Black  Nationalism." 
The  1958  "Resolution  on  the  Little  Rock  Crisis," 
in  which  Fraser  sharply  exposes  the  SWP  policy 
of  calling  for  federal  troops  to  intervene  in  the 


Little  Rock,  Arkansas  school  integration  crisis,  is 
also  omitted.  Fraser's  position  is  well  represented 
in  two  other,  shorter  documents  which  we  have 
included,  "Contribution  to  the  Discussion  on  the 
Slogan  'Send  Federal  Troops  to  Mississippi'"  and 
a  letter,  "On  Federal  Troops  in  Little  Rock." 

Those  wishing  to  read  further  are  directed  to 
the  bibliography  of  Fraser's  writings  included 
here  as  an  appendix.  All  of  these  materials  are 
available  at  the  Prometheus  Research  Library. 

Editorial  Note:  As  a  member  of  the  Socialist 
Workers  Party  and  the  Freedom  Socialist  Party 
Dick  Fraser  often  used  the  name  Richard  Kirk. 
The  bibliography  distinguishes  all  documents 
written  under  the  name  Kirk  with  an  asterisk. 
Our  introductions  give  the  source  and  some  back- 
ground for  the  documents,  which  have  been 
edited  to  correct  minor  errors  and  inconsisten- 
cies. Some  purely  personal  material  in  the  letters 
has  been  cut  out.  The  PRL  has  added  brief  expla- 
nations to  clarify  references  when  necessary; 
these  appear  in  brackets.  Footnotes  and  paren- 
thetical material  are  by  Dick  Fraser.  The  second 
printing  restores  the  page  from  "To  the  Demo- 
cratic Socialists  of  America"  previously  unavail- 
able to  us  and  corrects  errors  in  the  first  printing. 


Prometheus  Research  Library 

July  1990 

[reprinted  March  1994] 


Fraser  and  American  Scholarship  on  the  Black  Question 


Academic  scholarship  regarding  U.S.  history 
has  gone  through  several  phases.  After  the  failure 
of  Reconstruction,  scholarship  went  through  a 
very  reactionary  period.  Beginning  in  the  1890's, 
William  Dunning  of  Columbia  and  a  host  of  his 
students  spread  the  view  that  Reconstruction  was 
the  shame  of  U.S.  history  and  represented  mili- 
tary despotism,  the  evil  of  "Africanization,"  and 
unrestrained  corruption  against  which  a  noble 
but  defeated  South  tried  to  defend  itself.  Claude 
Bowers'  The  Tragic  Era  (1929)  was  the  most 
influential  work  of  this  ilk. 

Ulrich  Phillips  presented  a  view  of  slavery  as 
relatively  benign.  Slaves  were  well  treated  and 
well  fed,  and  the  system  was  productive.  Justin 
Smith  presented  a  view  of  the  Mexican  War  in 
which  the  arrogant  Mexicans  were  totally  to 


blame.  These  reactionary  and  pro-Southern  views 
of  U.S.  history  dominated  the  academies  and 
formed  the  basis  for  the  teaching  of  U.S.  history 
in  high  schools  and  universities  for  decades 
following. 

The  Civil  War  was  regarded  as  some  terrible 
mistake  in  which  the  issue  of  slavery  was  minor. 
Abolitionists  had  been  self-seeking  rabble-rousers 
whose  comments  on  slavery  and  the  politics  of 
their  day  can  be  ignored.  The  defamation  of  the 
radical  Republicans,  Charles  Sumner,  Thaddeus 
Stevens,  etc.,  as  power  mad  psychotics  became 
a  cottage  industry. 

Even  in  those  days  there  were  other  voices. 
In  1913  John  R.  Lynch,  former  slave  and  later 
congressman  from  Mississippi,  wrote  The  Facts  of 
Reconstruction  in  which  he  tried  to  tell  some 


21 


truth,  but  his  excellent  work  was  lost  in  a  sea  of 
racist  "scholarship."  A  few  words  from  the 
introduction  to  a  reprint  of  his  book  are 
instructive: 

"These  scholars  contended  that  the  Reconstruction 
governments  in  the  South  were  controlled  by  base, 
power-hungry  carpetbaggers  and  scalawags  who 
cynically  used  the  newly  enfranchised  blacks  to  gain 
power  and  to  sustain  their  debauchery  in  office. 
Without  the  votes  of  naive  and  illiterate  Negroes, 
who  were  easily  led  to  the  polls  to  vote  the  Radical 
ticket,  these  scoundrels  would  never  have  had  an 
opportunity  in  any  of  the  states  to  plunder  the  public 
treasuries  and  incite  blacks  against  whites,  according 
to  the  Dunning-school  historians. 

"Therefore  the  fundamental  mistake  in  the  Radical 
or  congressional  plan  of  Reconstruction  was  the  en- 
franchisement of  the  freedmen.  Happily,  however, 
according  to  the  established  version  of  the  story, 
during  the  mid- 1 870's  decent  whites  in  both  sections 
of  the  nation  rose  in  indignation  over  the  spoliation 
of  the  Southern  states,  and  through  the  heroic  efforts 
of  local  Democrats  the  Radical  Republican  regimes 
were  overthrown  and  good  government  restored." 

After  1960  a  new  wind  blew  in  the  colleges 
and  a  number  of  honest  scholars  began  to  chip 
away  at  the  mountain  of  pro-Southern  reactionary 
propaganda  that  still  dominated.  C.  Vann  Wood- 
ward, Eugene  D.  Genovese  and  James  M.  McPher- 
son  are  prominent.  Other  outstanding  names  are 
Kenneth  Stampp,  George  Fredrickson  and  Herbert 
Gutman,  not  to  mention  John  Hope  Franklin,  A. 
Leon  Higginbotham,  Jr.,  Henrietta  Buckmaster, 
and  other  black  scholars. 

So  what  is  missing?  Hasn't  everything  been 
straightened  out?  I  don't  believe  so.  Let's  take  the 
issue  of  the  nature  of  slavery.  In  1974  a  Harvard 
scholar,  Robert  Fogel,  wrote  Time  On  the  Cross: 
The  Economics  of  American  Negro  Slavery,  a  study 
of  slavery  based  on  "cliometrics"  which  is  a 
computerized  technique  of  examining  statistical 
data.  Fogel  concluded  that  slave  labor  was  more 
efficient  than  free  labor  and  hence  more  produc- 
tive. The  slaves  were  well  off  and  better  fed  than 
free  workers  in  the  North.  Fogel  has  written  a 
new  work  in  1989  expanding  on  this  theme. 
C.  Vann  Woodward  has  reviewed  Fogel's  new 
book  and  seems  at  a  loss  to  know  how  to  criticize 
it  even  if  he  seems  uncomfortable  with  Fogel's 
conclusions. 

In  the  meantime,  Fogel  and  his  new  toy,  clio- 
metrics, are  the  rage  in  academic  circles  and  a 
new  generation  of  scholars  using  the  technique 
are  collecting  their  PhDs  at  Harvard  and  are 
fanning  out  around  the  country.  I  asked  a  Har- 


vard history  student  if  the  slaves'  own  view  of 
slavery  might  not  paint  a  different  picture  of  how 
well  off  they  were.  Patiently  he  explained  to  me 
that  the  slaves'  stories  were  largely  taken  down 
by  abolitionists,  and  of  course  nothing  they  wrote 
can  be  believed!  How,  one  might  ask,  could  the 
words  of  slaves  hold  up  to  data  manipulated  by 
a  computer?  One  might  also  ask  in  studying  the 
Holocaust  if  it  would  be  permissible  to  consider 
the  recollections  of  the  survivors,  whose  views 
would  obviously  be  biased,  or  only  the  views  of 
the  guards  and  administrators  who  ran  the 
camps? 

Thirty  years  of  new  scholarship  haven't  had 
much  effect  on  the  views  of  history  taught  in  our 
schools,  although  there  has  been  some  correction. 
For  instance,  students  of  Mexican  history  at  Stan- 
ford U.  are  now  taught  that  the  Mexican  War  was 
started  with  an  unprovoked  attack  by  U.S.  forces 
ordered  by  President  Polk.  Well,  that's  true,  but 
it  is  not  enough.  What  were  the  class  forces  that 
caused  the  Mexican  War?  The  new  scholars  not 
only  fail  to  answer  such  questions,  but  consider 
such  a  question  improper. 

The  best  academic  scholars  are  committed  to 
a  view  of  history  that  regards  any  kind  of  eco- 
nomic determinism  as  quaint.  History  is  regarded 
basically  as  narrative.  There  was  no  bourgeois 
revolution  in  England.  The  French  Revolution 
had  many  causes,  but  it  was  not  a  clash  between 
class  forces.  The  view  that  struggles  between 
classes  is  a  determining  factor  in  history  is 
Marxist  fantasy.  In  fact  in  the  sense  that  Marx 
meant,  there  are  no  classes. 

This  crass  empiricism  did  not  always  domi- 
nate U.S.  scholarship.  There  used  to  be  at  least  a 
counter-current  of  materialism  that  had  legiti- 
macy as  in  Charles  Beard's  day.  But,  if  anything, 
methodology  has  deteriorated  since  then.  For 
instance,  Kenneth  Stampp  has  written  The  Era  of 
Reconstruction,  1865-1877  (1965)  as  a  total  revi- 
sion of  the  Dunning  school.  His  work  is  excellent 
in  many  ways,  but  he  says,  "DuBois's  attempt  at 
a  full-scale  revisionist  study,  Black  Reconstruction 
(New  York,  1935),  is  disappointing.  Though  rich 
in  empirical  detail,  the  book  presents  a  Marxian 
interpretation  of  southern  reconstruction  as  a 
proletarian  movement  that  is  at  best  naive.  The 
Marxist  historian  James  S.  Allen  in  Reconstruc- 
tion: The  Battle  for  Democracy,  1865-1876  (New 
York,  1937)  offers  an  interpretation  that  is  more 
credible  but  equally  schematic." 

It  is  no  longer  necessary  to  refute  Marxism 
which  is  simply  dismissed  as  naive,  quaint  and 


22 


schematic.  In  spite  of  this  I  believe  a  thorough 
class  analysis  has  been  written  regarding  Recon- 
struction by  Eric  Foner.  His  Reconstruction:  Amer- 
ica's Unfinished  Revolution  1863-1877  (1988)  is 
Marxist  in  content  if  not  in  name  and  meets  the 
most  strict  demands  of  scholarship. 

Who  has  spoken  in  like  voice  for  the  ante- 
bellum period?  Dick  felt  no  one  has,  that  is  no 
one  lately.  Charles  Beard  was  accused  of  being  a 
Marxist  in  his  economic  interpretation  of  the 
Constitution,  but  he  replied  that  if  so,  then  so 
was  James  Madison  from  whom  he  drew  much  of 
his  "economic"  view.  In  like  manner  Dick's  and 
my  view  of  the  period  between  say  1776  and 
1860  is  drawn  very  largely  from  Horace  Greeley, 
Charles  Sumner,  John  A.  Logan  (The  Great  Con- 
spiracy: Its  Origin  and  History  [1885]),  Henry 
Wilson,  Benjamin  Lundy  (The  War  in  Texas 
[1836])  and  other  radical  Republicans  and  aboli- 
tionists. I  submit  that  their  penetrating  analyses 
of  the  events  of  their  day  have  never  been  re- 
futed, but  have  been  dismissed  and  forgotten. 

Even  today  the  abolitionists  are  regarded  in 
scholarly  circles  with  great  suspicion.  People 
committed  to  a  cause  cannot  be  objective  observ- 
ers or  commentators,  it  is  said.  Black  scholars 
have  largely  tackled  the  issue  of  restoring  the  role 
of  slaves  and  black  leaders  to  proper  perspective. 
A  class  analysis  has  largely  been  absent.  In  a 
sense  Dick  wanted  to  restore  the  views  and 
scholarship  of  the  radicals  of  those  days.  That  is 
not  an  unworthy  purpose. 

A  brief  word  about  "revisionism"  may  be 
needed.  Kenneth  Stampp  regards  himself  and 
other  post-1960  liberal  scholars  as  revisionists, 
that  is  compared  with  the  Dunning  school.  But, 
Dunning  a  generation  before  had  considered  him- 
self a  revisionist  of  the  views  of  the  mid- 19th 
century.  Robert  Fogel  might  be  called  a  new 
revisionist  of  the  revisionists  of  the  revisionists. 
I  think  it  is  better  not  to  use  the  term. 

I  know  that  a  lot  of  "Marxists"  in  our  move- 
ment have  tended  to  take  scholarship  lightly. 
Substituting  theory  for  research,  they  generalize 
at  the  drop  of  a  hat.  However,  it  is  not  always 
necessary  for  research  to  be  original  to  be  used 
in  a  valid  general  analysis.  For  instance  Edward 
Diener  is  a  U.  of  Illinois  scholar  who  wrote  a 
commentary  on  U.S.  history  (Reinterpreting  U.S. 
History  [1975]).  The  book  is  not  annotated  and 
makes  no  pretense  of  original  scholarship.  His 
book  just  expresses  a  point  of  view  which  is  an 


altogether  legitimate  practice.  His  view  happens 
to  be  fairly  conservative.  Dick  wanted  to  make 
reasonable  use  of  available  scholarship  to  express 
a  point  of  view  about  U.S.  history. 

Briefly,  Dick's  view  was  that  after  the  inven- 
tion of  the  cotton  gin  the  slave  system  took  on 
new  life  and  the  compromise  between  the  plant- 
ers and  the  merchant  capitalists  in  the  North  and 
expressed  in  the  U.S.  Constitution  fell  apart.  The 
planters  wanted  state  power  for  themselves,  and 
effectively  won  it  with  the  election  of  Andrew 
Jackson.  In  the  main,  they  controlled  the  presi- 
dency and  Congress  from  then  until  1860.  Their 
power  was  based  on  a  class  alliance  between 
themselves  and  the  free  farmers  of  the  North  who 
had  similar  interests  on  some  questions  such  as 
soft  money  and  low  tariffs. 

This  alliance  operated  to  stunt  the  growth  of 
capitalism.  The  power  of  the  planters  was  ex- 
pressed through  their  control  of  the  Democratic 
Party.  The  Whig  "opposition"  was  about  as 
effective  as  the  Democratic  opposition  to  the 
Republicans  today.  The  subservience  of  the  Whigs 
gave  the  planters  effective  state  power. 

When  the  abolitionists  spoke  of  the  Slave 
Power  they  were  not  being  inflammatory  but 
analytical. 

The  Republican  Party  was  a  revolutionary 
party  which  led  the  nation  through  the  Civil  War 
to  an  overthrow  of  planter  power  and  the  ascen- 
dency of  the  capitalist  state.  The  failure  of  that 
social  revolution  to  proceed  through  Reconstruc- 
tion to  a  resolution  of  the  land  question  in  the 
South  by  giving  land  and  the  franchise  to  the 
freedmen  set  the  stage  for  the  racist  nation  we 
have  inherited. 

Dick  would  have  wanted  to  cover  a  broad 
sweep  going  on  to  the  aftermath  of  Reconstruc- 
tion, but  that  is  all  over  with  his  passing.  But, 
certainly  it  is  appropriate  to  finish  his  beginning 
treatment  covering  the  ascendency  of  the  Slave 
Power. 

I  further  believe  that  the  best  of  current 
academic  scholars  have  not  told  Dick's  story.  They 
have  made  a  major  effort  to  reduce  the  blatant 
racism  that  dominated  the  academies  for  80 
years,  but  in  method,  empiricism  is  today  more 
dominant  in  the  study  of  history  than  ever  before. 


David  Dreiser 
16  April  1990 


San  Diego  Farm  Strike  Is  Crushed 

"Popular  Front"  Engineers  Fatal  Truce 
Which  Smashes  Celery  Strike 


From  California  Labor  Action,  20  February  1937.  Edited  by  James  P.  Cannon, 
Labor  Action  was  an  agitational  organ  of  the  Trotskyists  in  California  during 
the  1936-37  entry  into  the  Socialist  Party.  Dick  Fraser  was  active  in  the 
Southern  California  Trotskyist  movement  from  1934  to  1938. 


The  pathetic  end  of  the  San  Diego  celery 
strike  is  another  picture  of  betrayal  and  deception 
reminiscent  of  Orange  County.  It  is  a  picture  of 
a  Mexican  Consul,  some  local  politicians  and  their 
stooges  and  a  couple  of  incompetent  labor  leaders 
who  helped  these  agents  of  the  employers  to 
maneuver  the  striking  unions  into  calling  a  two 
day  "truce"  in  picketing  just  as  the  Shipper- 
Growers  were  beginning  to  feel  the  pressure  of 
the  strike,  thus  breaking  the  backbone  of  the 
workers'  offensive. 

The  picture  was  painted  by  the  Farmers' 
Protective  Association,  framed  by  its  agents 
within  the  unions,  and  nicely  glassed  in  by  a 
clique  of  Stalinites. 

The  unions  of  San  Diego  County  up  until  a 
week  ago  were  the  pride  of  the  state,  the  shining 
light  of  unionism  in  agriculture;  today  they  are 
nothing  but  another  menacing  blot,  marking  the 
spot  where  another  strike  was  broken,  and  this 
one  without  a  struggle.  Six  months  ago  the  San 
Diego  unions  boasted  of  good  contractual  rela- 
tions with  the  growers;  their  leadership  was  clear 
and  their  perspectives  sound;  their  ranks  were 
filled  with  militant  union  men;  they  have  given 
to  the  labor  movement  such  men  as  Jose 
Espinoza. 

But  such  events  as  the  Orange  County  citrus 
strike,  Los  Angeles,  Salinas,  etc.,  had  long  ago 
planted  a  firm  determination  in  the  Shipper- 
Grower  Associations  to  wipe  out  the  existing 
unions  in  agriculture  and  the  unions  in  San  Diego 
in  particular. 

Attack  Leaders 

The  first  and  most  important  line  of  strategy 
followed  by  the  growers'  agents  in  the  unions  was 
to  undermine  the  authentic  leadership  of  the 
Mexican  union  with  a  vicious  campaign  of  lies 
and  slanders  so  that  by  the  time  of  the  strike  all 


of  the  stable  and  militant  leaders  of  the  union 
were  either  discredited  or  entirely  out  of  the 
ranks  of  the  union. 

One  principal  reason  for  the  former  stability 
of  the  union  was  the  fact  that  its  leadership  never 
permitted  the  Communist  Party  to  get  a  foothold. 
This  time  the  Stalinists  took  the  cue  from  the  em- 
ployers' attacks  upon  the  union  and  started  one 
of  their  famous  "build-ups"  around  a  second-rate 
demagogic  politician.  He  turned  out  to  be  an 
ideal  stooge  for  either  the  bosses  or  the  Stalinists, 
being  absolutely  ignorant  of  the  meaning  of  the 
labor  movement  in  any  of  its  forms  except  per- 
haps as  a  sublimation  of  religious  experience. 

At  the  same  time  a  vile  campaign  against 
Jose  Espinoza  was  initiated,  and  to  make  it  sure, 
just  before  the  strike  was  to  begin  Jose  was 
thrown  in  jail  in  Orange  County  on  his  old  va- 
grancy charge  along  with  Velarde  of  the  CUCOM. 
The  united  front  of  the  bosses  and  the  Commies 
(is  this  the  People's  Front  in  action?)  then  forced 
out  Lillian  Monroe  and  Castillo,  leaders  of  last 
year's  successful  strike  along  with  Espinoza. 

Thus  the  unions  entered  the  strike  with  the 
membership  considerably  demoralized  by  the  re- 
cent turn-over  of  militants  and  little  confidence 
in  the  leadership.  Nevertheless,  after  a  very  fair 
walkout  on  January  27th  a  militant  picket-line 
succeeded  in  tying  up  considerable  of  the  celery 
crop. 

The  idea  that  under  the  best  conditions  these 
unions  might  have  been  able  to  deal  with  the 
Celery  Growers'  Association  as  a  whole  (tributary 
to  the  Farmers'  Protective  Association)  is  at  best 
overly  optimistic.  A  good  chance  for  partial  vic- 
tory lay,  however,  in  concentration  of  the  work- 
ers' forces  in  such  a  way  as  to  enable  the  unions 
to  break  off  one  after  another  several  Shipper- 
Growers  from  the  Association. 

The    sixth    day    of    the    strike    found    the 


23 


24 


Association  in  the  agony  of  a  sure  split  as  a  result 
of  well  concentrated  workers'  forces.  The  power- 
ful apparatus  of  the  bosses,  both  inside  and  out- 
side the  unions,  sprang  into  immediate  action. 
The  County  Supervisors  threatened  to  pass  an 
anti-picketing  law  effective  in  "all  unincorporated 
districts"  (the  agricultural  areas)  of  the  county. 
Without  consultation  with  the  Central  Strike 
Committee  a  meeting  was  hastily  prepared  where- 
in a  supervisor  was  to  present  a  "plan"  for  "set- 
tling" the  strike. 

So  the  puppet-stage  was  set  and  the  puppets 
under  the  puppet  mastership  of  Chet  Moore 
jerked  on  their  strings,  and  the  strike  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  bosses. 

The  politician,  Bellon,  smiled  and  ogled  and 
told  how  workers  must  use  "strategy"  in  order  to 
win.  This  strategy,  said  the  politician,  consists  in 
removing  your  picket  line  for  two  days  in  order 
to  save  us  poor  politicians  the  embarrassment  of 
passing  an  anti-picketing  law  at  the  insistence  of 
the  Farmers'  Protective  Association.  No  one  was 
taken  in  at  first,  some  of  the  workers  actually 
laughed  in  his  face,  but  the  stage  was  well  set.  At 
Bellon's  right  sat  our  two-bit,  build-up  leader  and 
his  trusty  Stalinite  builder-upper,  also  two  local 
nitwits,  stooging  for  the  politician,  and  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  San  Diego  County  Building 
Trades  Council.  They  were  all  pleading  for  the 
agricultural  workers  to  help  them  fight  the  anti- 
picketing  law,  directed  at  the  celery  strike— by 
removing  the  pickets  from  the  celery  fields.  At 
Bellon's  right  sat  the  crafty  Mexican  Consul 
giving  silent  but  effective  support. 

"Discussion"  started  and  the  Stalinists  yelled 
"charge"  while  beating  a  hasty  retreat  to  the 
protective  shelter  of  impotence.  Stalinite  Roscoe 
(AIWUA)  yelled  that  "we  are  not  afraid  to  make 
a  sacrifice."  Delgado  called  upon  his  fellow 
workers  to  show  that  agricultural  workers  can 
"discipline"  themselves,  and  urged  them  on  to 
break  their  own  strike! 

The  Mexican  Consul  (Castro)  blandly  said 
that  he  was  glad  that  the  workers  were  "doing 
the  right  thing."  The  politician  and  the  boys  had 
a  few  uncomfortable  moments  when  the  present 
writer  spoke  but  the  stage  was  too  well  set  and 
the  militants  were  caught  unawares,  going  home 
heavy  hearted  and  with  a  choking  feeling  in  their 
throats,  knowing  that  their  strike  had  been  sold 
out. 

Three  days  later  the  men  began  to  feel  the 
fruits  of  militant  struggle  gradually  melting  away 
and  the  strike  slipping  through  their  fingers.  In 


a  last  great  reflex  the  pickets  attempted  to  return 
to  life  and  sweep  like  a  hurricane  through  the 
county,  clearing  fields  from  which  the  green  gold 
was  being  taken.  Disorganized  and  frantic  the 
picketing  finally  petered  out,  its  leaders  were 
arrested  and  that  was  all.  The  fields  filled  up  as 
quickly  as  they  were  cleared.  Another  flare-up 
occurred  the  next  day  but  by  this  time  the 
leadership  had  lost  sight  of  everything  but  saving 
its  own  face.  The  picket  lines  dwindled  away  and 
died. 

However,  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the 
striking  men  stayed  out  of  the  fields  faithfully 
awaiting  the  decision  of  the  union  although  all 
realized  that  to  carry  on  further  would  be  folly. 

The  question  then  took  perspective:  here  had 
been  a  good  strike  situation,  a  militant  picket-line 
and  a  healthy  spirit  in  the  unions,— but  the  strike 
is  lost.  All  at  once  it  occurs  to  the  leaders  of  the 
fiasco,  to  the  politicians,  to  the  Stalinites  and 
stoolpigeons,  to  the  Mexican  Consul,  to  everyone 
who  had  a  hand  in  the  sell-out:  where  to  dump 
the  responsibility?  So  on  the  night  when  the 
strike  was  formally  to  be  called  off  another 
frame-up  was  staged. 

The  Stalinite-boss  combination  went  to 
elaborate  pains  in  order  to  shift  responsibility  to 
one  individual  against  whom  all  the  anti-labor 
forces  in  and  out  of  the  unions  could  unite.  They 
had  a  well-drilled  cheering  section  supplemented 
by  some  misguided  workers  plied  with  liquor 
until  they  were  rolling  drunk  and  quite  irre- 
sponsible. The  best  Stalinite  provocateurs  were 
available.  One  member  of  the  cheering  section 
was  unfortunately  placed  near  me  and  admitted 
that  he  did  not  know  who,  nor  where  the  "trai- 
tor" was  nor  what  he  had  done.  After  attacking 
him  as  a  "microbe"  with  all  weapons,  doing 
everything  in  their  power  to  create  a  good  witch- 
burning  spirit  among  the  workers,  those  who 
originally  sold  out  the  strike  were  able  to  muster 
only  27  votes  out  of  300  strikers  present  for 
expulsion  of  the  present  writer  from  the  meeting. 
This  alone  is  a  final  condemnation  of  their  entire 
course  and  an  indication  that  the  victory  of  the 
forces  of  reaction  within  the  union  will  be  short 
lived. 

The  path  of  the  California  agricultural 
workers  in  the  state  has  constantly  been  beset  by 
betrayals  of  this  same  character.  The  local 
American  union  is  small  and  young  and  could  not 
be  expected  to  stand  up  alone  under  heavy 
pressure,  but  it  will  take  more  than  the  non- 
sensical yapping  of  the  Stalinists  to  explain  how 


25 


the  proud  Independent  (Mexican)  Union  of  La- 
borers and  Field  Workers  of  San  Diego  County 
could,  with  one  small  puff  of  a  politician's  sugary 
breath,  fold  up  like  a  tent  in  a  gale  and  permit 
itself  completely  and  utterly  to  be  seduced  by  its 
own  leaders  into  selling  its  own  strike. 

In  the  first  place  it  must  be  recognized  that 
these  unions  were  fighting  a  statewide  organ- 
ization, whereas  every  tendency  to  attempt  to 
localize  the  problem  was  played  up  by  the  em- 
ployers, the  Stalinites  and  the  politicians,  so  that 
the  membership  and  the  leadership  of  the  unions 
was  kept  from  a  correct  understanding  of  the 
nature  of  the  enemy.  The  bosses  had  an  intelli- 
gent machine  working  in  and  about  the  union 
that  time  after  time  succeeded  in  blocking  a  cor- 
rect position.  The  Communist  Party  clique  dove- 
tailed exactly  into  the  machine  of  the  employers. 
This  vicious  combination  succeeded  in  isolating 


the  workers  from  their  legitimate  leaders  and 
projecting  them  into  a  strike  helpless  as  a  ship 
without  a  rudder. 

These  unions  are  isolated  from  the  main  body 
of  organized  labor  in  the  state  and  must  depend 
upon  their  own  resources  in  any  situation.  These 
resources  are  very  meager.  Local  politicians  and 
labor  fakers  find  in  these  independent  unions 
easy  prey,  in  that  they  stand  and  fall  alone  and 
cannot  rally  to  their  support  their  legitimate  allies 
in  the  ranks  of  organized  labor. 

The  salvation  of  these  unions  rests  on  a  State 
organization  for  agriculture  in  the  A.F.  of  L.,  and 
it  is  with  hope  that  these  workers  receive  from 
the  State  Federation  of  Labor  a  conference  call 
sent  to  all  agricultural  unions  for  the  purpose  of 
beginning  the  unification  of  unionism  in  agricul- 
ture on  a  sound  basis. 


New  NMU  Hall— Facade 
to  Hide  Union  Retreat 

From  the  Socialist  Workers  Party's  Militant,  8  July  1944.  Dick  Fraser  sailed  out 
of  the  port  of  New  York  as  a  member  of  the  National  Maritime  Union  from 
1943  to  1948. 


The  new  hall  of  the  National  Maritime  Union 
in  New  York  City  is  now  open  and  in  full  opera- 
tion after  a  big  National  Maritime  Day  dedication 
ceremony.  This  is  reputed  to  be  the  most  elabo- 
rate union  hall  that  American  seamen  have  ever 
owned.  It  has  an  illuminated  dispatchers'  board, 
recreational  facilities  including  a  bar  with  free 
beer  on  occasions,  upholstered  benches  and,  as 
President  Curran  promised,  sweet  music  while  the 
seamen  wait  for  their  next  ship  out.  A  good  union 
hall  is  a  good  thing  to  have.  All  militants,  of 
which  the  NMU  has  its  share,  are  in  favor  of  good 
and  better  things  for  the  seamen;  that  is  why  they 
built  the  union  in  the  first  place. 

After  the  government  smashed  the  seamen's 
unions  after  the  last  war  (in  1921)  and  herded 
the  "heroes  in  dungarees"  into  government  fink 
halls,  crimp  joints,  and  shipowner  controlled 
employment  offices,  the  seamen  conducted  an  un- 
remitting struggle  to  establish  their  own  hiring 
halls. 


It  was  not  until  the  great  maritime  strike  of 
1934,  which  culminated  in  the  San  Francisco  gen- 
eral strike,  that  the  seamen  took  the  first  step 
toward  regaining  union  control  of  the  hiring  hall. 
In  the  strike  of  1936-37,  the  99-day  strike  on  the 
Pacific  Coast,  the  seamen  were  finally  able  to 
force  the  shipowners  to  sign  written  agreements 
embodying  recognition  of  the  union  hiring  hall. 

For  seamen,  union  control  over  the  hiring 
hall  meant  an  end  to  the  vicious  system  of 
blacklisting  by  which  the  government  and  the 
shipowners  victimized  union  militants;  it  meant 
an  end  to  discrimination,  favoritism,  miserable 
working  conditions,  low  wages,  and  a  condition 
of  sea-slavery.  It  meant,  above  all,  the  independ- 
ence of  the  union,  free  from  domination  or  con- 
trol by  the  shipowners  or  their  political  agents  in 
the  government!  The  unions  formulated  their 
OWN  shipping  rules  based  on  the  principle  of 
rotary  shipping.  Union  members  who  violated  the 
shipping  rules,  the  union  contract,  union  working 


26 


conditions,  were  disciplined  by  the  democratic 
action  of  the  union  membership.  The  union  hiring 
hall  for  seamen  became  the  symbol  of  free, 
independent  unionism  in  the  maritime  industry. 
It  is  against  this  background  that  seamen 
must  assess  the  value  of  either  old  or  new  hiring 
halls.  What  are  the  conditions  that  go  with  the 
new  NMU  hall?  During  the  last  two  years  the 
shipping  rules  have  been  "modified"  until  there 
is  little  left  of  the  rights  of  members.  For 
example,  the  "Wartime  Shipping  Rules"  of  the 
NMU  for  the  port  of  New  York  contain  the 
following  provisions: 

Wartime  Regulations 

1.  "All  men  between  the  years  of  18  and  38 
who  persist  in  turning  down  ships  without  any 
good  reason  that  they  can  substantiate,  will  have 
their  names  turned  over  to  the  Draft  Board  by  the 
Agent  and  the  Dispatcher  as  not  being  bonafide 
seamen." 

2.  "All  men  over  38  years  of  age  who  persist 
in  turning  down  ships  without  any  good  reason 
that  they  can  substantiate,  will  have  their  names 
turned  over  to  the  War  Manpower  Commission  as 
not  being  bonafide  seamen." 

These  provisions  in  the  shipping  rules  mean 
that  the  union  officials  have  become  finger-men 
for  government  agencies  upon  whom  they  depend 
to  enforce  the  union  shipping  rules!  The  union 
shipping  card  has  been  abolished  and  in  its  place 
there  has  been  substituted  the  RMO  (Recruitment 
and  Manning  Organization  of  the  War  Shipping 
Administration)  time  allotment  card  with  the 
union's  name  on  it.  These  measures,  only  a  few 
of  a  number  of  other  like  measures  that  have 
been  put  into  effect  by  the  Curran-Stalinist 
leadership,  serve  to  undermine  union  control  over 
the  hiring  hall.  And  flowing  from  these,  there 
arise  certain  vicious  practices,  especially  a  system 
of  favoritism. 

Shore-time  allotments  run  from  four  to  thirty 
days.  This  inequality  in  shipping  cards  makes 
rotary  shipping  impossible,  forcing  a  man,  say, 
with  a  ten-day  card  to  compete  with  others  with 
thirty-day  cards.  A  seaman  is  doubly  penalized  for 
quitting  even  a  ship  on  which  the  worst  condi- 
tions prevail.  First,  he  has  to  take  a  short 
shipping  card.  Second,  he  incurs  disciplinary 
measures  by  the  union  for  getting  off  without  a 
replacement. 

A  most  vicious  practice  has  resulted  from  this. 
The  ship's  officers  and  company  officials  have 
fostered  a  system  of  favoritism  whereby  a  seaman 


who  permits  himself  to  become  so  involved  can 
get  little  protection  against  the  stringent  RMO 
rulings.  This  divides  the  crew  and  always  leaves 
the  company  with  a  few  stooges  on  the  ship.  With 
a  divided  crew  a  seaman  willing  to  fight  for 
conditions  finds  himself  fined.  Because  of  the 
short  shipping  card  he  will  then  get,  along  with 
other  possible  penalties,  and  the  unwillingness  of 
the  Patrolmen  to  back  him  up,  even  a  good  union 
man  becomes  reluctant  to  fight. 

The  end  result  is  that  bad  conditions  get 
worse  and  there  is  no  way  to  stop  it.  A  seaman  is 
cajoled  or  threatened  into  taking  a  job  where  he 
must  sleep  in  a  crummy  bunk  on  a  lousy  ship, 
while  the  shipowner  gets  praise  for  keeping  it  in 
operation. 

When  a  seaman  comes  in  from  a  trip,  he  is 
confronted  in  the  Union  Hall  with  all  the  red  tape 
of  a  first  rate  government  agency.  On  the  con- 
veyer belt  of  this  red  tape  he  gets  pushed  from 
pillar  to  post  and  from  office  to  office,  and  finally 
lands  in  the  Trial  and  Rules  Committee  which,  to 
save  time,  will  read  him  the  rules  and  give  him  a 
trial  at  the  same  time. 

Enforcing  the  RMO  rulings  is  the  job  of  the 
RMO  and  not  of  a  union.  However,  the  NMU  offi- 
cials even  use  the  practice  of  reporting  violations 
of  RMO  rulings  to  the  RMO  and  Selective  Service 
officials! 

The  Union  Hall  is  no  longer  a  place  where  a 
union  man  can  expect  to  find  protection  and  just 
representation  against  a  shipowner  or  a  govern- 
ment bureaucrat.  On  the  contrary,  this  system  by 
which  the  Union  has  undertaken  the  functions  of 
the  WSA,  the  RMO  and  the  Selective  Service 
System  makes  going  to  sea  just  like  being  in  jail, 
only  more  efficient.  It  is  hardly  surprising, 
therefore,  that  the  shipowners  eagerly  accept 
when  they  are  invited  into  the  Hall  and  are 
received  with  open  arms. 

At  the  April  27  membership  meeting  Curran 
boasted:  "For  the  first  time  in  history  personnel 
representatives  of  60  shipowners  were  sitting  in 
the  Hall,  talking  cooperation.  I  told  them  that  for 
seven  years  we've  been  fighting  to  keep  them  out 
of  the  Hall,  and  now  we're  fighting  to  get  them 
in."  Shipowner  Taylor  of  the  Merchant  Marine 
Institute  dedicated  the  new  Hall.  An  evil  omen  for 
the  future! 

Among  the  fruits  of  Curran's  "fight"  is  this, 
that,  as  everyone  knows,  recently  there  has  been 
an  epidemic  of  seamen  shipping  off  the  dock 
through  company  offices  and  on  unorganized 
lines  (Standard  Oil,  Isthmian,  etc.).  National  Vice- 


27 


President  of  NMU  Meyers  has  complained  to  the 
War  Shipping  Administration  that  seamen  do  this 
in  order  to  escape  and  evade  the  shipping  rules 
of  the  NMU.  The  Pilot,  official  weekly  of  the 
Union,  reported  on  May  5:  "The  union  has  even 
gone  so  far  as  taking  drastic  action  against  men 
who  violate  our  shipping  rules... after  the  union 
takes  this  action  however  its  hands  are  tied 
because  the  individual... is  free  to  go  to  any  one 
of  the  few  unorganized  lines..." 


The  policies  of  NMU  leaders  in  supporting 
the  government  and  its  bureaus  become  so  op- 
pressive that  seamen  are  driven  away  from  the 
Union  Hall  to  the  protection  of— the  shipowners 
and  their  crimps.  This  is  virtually  what  the  Pilot 
itself  says. 

This  is  the  price  that  the  seamen  pay  for  the 
support  their  officials  give  to  Roosevelt  and  the 
war  machine.  This  is  the  price  of  the  new  Hall. 


Soldiers  Cheer  Striking  Workers 

From  the  Workers'  Forum  section  of  the  Militant,  15  December  1945.  Dick 
Fraser  worked  briefly  with  the  Socialist  Workers  Party's  Newark  branch  at  that 
time. 


A  couple  of  days  ago  we  were  distributing  the 
Militant  on  a  corner  close  to  the  Hyatt  Plant  in 
Harrison,  N.J.  The  pickets  in  front  of  the  plant 
were  marching  in  file  with  their  placards  raised 
high.  There  was  a  meeting  of  the  union  to  be 
held  shortly  and  the  workers  were  either  just 
arriving  or  standing  around  before  going  into  the 
meeting.  Besides  this  group,  the  Crucible  Steel 
Local  was  to  have  a  meeting  about  a  block  away. 
This  made  quite  a  crowd  of  workers  along  the 
street,  and  what  with  the  pickets  marching,  and 
my  comrade  and  me  distributing  the  Militant,  and 
the  workers  milling  around,  there  was  quite  a 
little  activity. 

Now  the  Pennsy  (Pennsylvania  R.R.)  runs  on 


an  elevated  track  right  by  the  plant.  And  just  at 
this  time  along  came  a  troop  train  from  New  York 
loaded  with  GI's  who  had  debarked  from  Europe 
and  were  on  the  way  to  separation  centers.  As  the 
train  passed  the  plant  the  GI's  threw  open  the 
windows  and  gave  a  tremendous  cheer,  as  only 
the  GI's  on  their  way  home  can,  and  waved  to  the 
pickets.  The  pickets  waved  their  placards  back, 
and  an  answering  yell  rose  up  from  the  workers 
across  the  street  near  the  hall. 

The  striking  workers  got  a  great  kick  out  of 
this  event  and  I  wish  that  all  G.M.  strikers  could 
have  witnessed  it.  And  the  next  best  they  can  do 
is  to  read  about  it  in  the  Militant  which  is  why  I 
am  writing  this. 


28 


Cover  of  original  August  1954  SWP  Discussion  Bulletin 
containing  "The  Negro  Struggle  and  the  Proletarian  Revolution" 


^ 


A-19 


August,  19  51* 


I. 


II. 


Contents 

THE  NEGRO  STRUGGLE  AND  THE  PROLETARIAN  REVOLUTION 

By  R.  S.   Fraser 

Introduction 

Two  lectures  given  at  the  Friday  Night  Forum, 
Los  Angeles,  November,  1953- 


Race  and  Capitalism 

1.  The  Transformation  of  the  Negro  Question 
Exploitation  of  Skin  Color 
Race  and  Relations 
The  Origin  of  the  Race  ConceDt 
The  Form  of  Race  Relations 
International  Aspects  of  the  Race  Question 
The  U.S.  as  the  "Melting  Pot" 


2. 

2: 

5. 
6. 
7. 


The  Struggle  for  Equality 

1.  The  Southern  Social  System 

2.  The   Industrialization  of  the  South 

3.  The  Struggle  for  Equality 
*+.     Race  Consciousness 

5.  The  Question  of  Self-Determination 

6.  The  Question  of  Prejudice 

7.  The  Negro  Struggle,   Capitalist  Politics 

and  the  Labor  Movement 

8.  Socialism  and  the  End  of  the  Race  System 

Published  by  the 

SOCIALIST  WORKERS   PARTY 
116  University  Place 
New  York  3,  N.Y. 


50* 


Page. 

1 


10 
11 

15 
18 
20 
22 

2lf 
25 
26 
27 
32 

37 

ko 

^3 


The  Negro  Struggle  and  the  Proletarian  Revolution 


From  SWP  Discussion  Bulletin  No.  A-19,  August  1954.  Fraser  delivered  these 
two  lectures  in  November  1953  at  the  SWP  Friday  Night  Forum  in  Los  Angeles. 


I.  Race  and  Capitalism 


Not  long  ago  a  friend  of  mine  with  his  family 
made  an  automobile  trip  to  his  ancestral  home  in 
the  South.  In  a  discussion  of  his  trip  I  asked  him 
how  he  got  along  on  the  road.  He  is  a  former  of- 
ficial of  the  NAACP,  a  militant  fighter  against 
segregation  and  discrimination  and  knows  the 
score  just  about  any  way  he  may  be  required  to 
add  it  up.  I  knew  that  any  incident  which  the 
southern  Jim  Crow  system  insisted  upon  bother- 
ing him  with  would  be  amply  repaid. 

No,  he  hadn't  any  trouble  to  speak  of.  Only 
one  small  incident  occurred  at  a  gas  station  in  the 
beautiful  state  of  Arkansas.  They  drove  into  this 
gas  station,  asked  the  attendant  to  fill  the  tank 
and  prepared  to  go  to  the  rest  rooms.  The  atten- 
dant told  them  gently  but  firmly  that  the  colored 
rest  rooms  were  around  at  the  back.  My  friend 
put  on  his  best  dead-pan  expression  and  in  his 
most  casual  conversational  tone  replied:  "That's 
interesting.  What  color  are  they?" 

And  while  the  attendant  was  gasping  for 
breath  and  trying  to  keep  from  fainting,  the  fami- 
ly made  its  unhurried  way  to  the  regular  rest 
rooms. 

This  episode,  small  and  personal  though  it 
may  be,  reveals  two  important  truths  which  I  will 
try  to  illustrate  tonight  and  next  Friday  when  I 
complete  this  discussion  of  the  race  question. 
First,  it  illustrates  the  complete  irrationality  of  the 
division  of  society  into  groups  according  to  skin 
color.  What  my  friend  was  saying  to  the  gas 
station  attendant  was  that  to  any  rational  human 
being  there  should  be  no  more  significance  to  dif- 
ferences in  the  color  of  people  than  to  differences 
in  the  color  of  rest  rooms,  and  that  the  fact  that 
the  attendant  was  the  proprietor  of  rest  rooms  of 
different  color  was  mildly  interesting,  but  no 
more.  But  that  contrary  to  all  reason  and  logic, 
all  of  American  society  is  disfigured  by  this 
artificial  and  fantastic  division  into  races. 

Secondly,  the  episode  brings  to  mind  what 
the  reaction  of  an  ordinary  European,  unfamiliar 


with  the  American  social  structure,  might  be  to 
such  a  situation.  A  naive  Englishman  or  French- 
man might  honestly  reply  to  such  a  situation: 
"You  have  rest  rooms  of  different  color?  Very 
interesting,  I  am  sure.  What  color  are  they?" 

When  placed  in  this  context,  the  racial  divi- 
sion of  society  shows  up  primarily  as  an  American 
disease  of  the  social  structure.  For  in  the  social 
structure  of  none  of  the  advanced  industrial 
countries  is  it  possible  to  find  anything  approach- 
ing the  American  system  of  race  relations,  with 
the  single  exception  of  Germany  under  the  Nazis. 

These  are  two  important  themes  in  the  anal- 
ysis of  the  Negro  question  and  you  will  find  them 
apparent  in  each  of  the  following  subjects  with 
which  we  shall  deal  tonight: 

1.  The  transformation  of  the  Negro  question 
from  the  days  of  Booker  T.  Washington  to 
the  present  day. 

2.  The  exploitation  of  skin  color. 

3.  What  is  race  and  what  are  race  relations? 

4.  The  origin  of  the  race  concept. 

5.  The  form  of  race  relations. 

6.  International  aspects  of  the  race  question. 

7.  The  Negro  question  and  the  oppression  of 
national  minorities  in  the  U.S. 

1.    The  Transformation  of  the  Negro  Question 

No  inhabitant  of  our  planet  is  permitted  to 
ignore  the  power  of  American  capitalism  today. 
Its  military  might,  its  financial  rulership,  its 
monopolistic  national  power  and  apparent  politi- 
cal equilibrium  are  everyday  facts  of  life  for  all 
the  oppressed  peoples  of  the  world.  This  strength 
of  American  capitalism  was  born  in  the  Civil  War, 
the  Reconstruction  and  the  consolidation  of 
power  following  it. 

In  1860  the  capitalist  class  had  shared  the 
power  with  the  dominant  slaveowners  for  sixty 
years.  Throughout  this  period  the  capitalists  were 
thwarted  economically  and  humiliated  politically. 
Economically  they  were  injured  by  the  constant 


29 


30 


reduction  of  tariffs  which  brought  cheap  British 
goods  onto  the  domestic  market.  Their  need  for 
westward  expansion  was  thwarted  because  the 
slaveowners  would  permit  westward  development 
only  on  terms  favorable  to  their  interests. 

The  capitalists  were  humiliated  politically  by 
a  series  of  congressional  compromises.  In  these 
compromises  the  slaveowners  invariably  came  off 
the  victors,  even  when  the  Whig  Party  of  the 
capitalists  held  congressional  majorities  and 
controlled  the  executive  as  well. 

Through  the  Civil  War  the  capitalist  class 
overthrew  the  slaveowners  and  took  the  whole 
national  power  for  itself. 

During  the  ensuing  Reconstruction  in  the 
South,  the  capitalists  permitted  a  short  and  incon- 
clusive struggle  of  the  Negroes  for  equality.  These 
were  the  glorious  days  when  a  white  and  black 
peasantry  ruled  the  South.  It  was  then  that  the 
Negroes  achieved  the  social,  political  and  eco- 
nomic destruction  of  the  old  enemy  class.  But  as 
soon  as  this  destruction  had  been  accomplished, 
the  capitalists  turned  against  the  Negroes.  To- 
gether with  a  new  capitalist  plantation  aris- 
tocracy, the  capitalists  drove  the  Negro  people 
back  into  the  social  conditions  that  accompanied 
slavery. 

This  defeat  of  the  Negroes  formed  the  basis 
for  the  modern  political  system  in  the  United 
States.  The  stability  of  the  so-called  two-party 
system,  where  the  capitalists  rule  unquestioned 
through  either  one  of  two  similar  political 
cliques,  was  based  upon  the  disfranchisement  of 
the  southern  workers. 

This  political  system  enabled  the  capitalist 
class  to  exploit  mercilessly  the  western  farmers, 
amass  tremendous  aggregations  of  capital 
through  this  exploitation  and  through  the  looting 
of  the  public  domain  and  the  public  treasury. 

Capitalist  economic  dominance  and  political 
equilibrium  made  it  possible  for  the  United  States 
to  expand  into  the  world  market,  to  engage  in 
two  world  wars  of  imperialist  expansion,  and  to 
rise  from  an  insignificant  power  at  the  beginning 
of  this  century  to  its  present  exalted  position  as 
leader  of  the  entire  capitalist  world.  All  this  was 
done  without  serious  political  interference  by  any 
other  class  in  American  society. 

In  part,  therefore,  the  economic  well-being 
and  the  political  stability  of  the  capitalist  class 
rest  upon  the  renewed  degradation  of  the  Negro 
people  after  the  Civil  War. 

It  was  this  degradation  that  brought  forth 
Booker  T.  Washington.  He  was  the  instrument  by 


which  the  Negroes  acceded  to  the  terms  of  defeat. 
In  his  famous  Atlanta  speech  in  1893,  Wash- 
ington formally  renounced  the  struggle  for 
equality. 

But  since  this  defeat  in  the  last  quarter  of  the 
19th  century  there  has  been  a  fundamental 
change  in  the  material  conditions  surrounding  the 
Negro  struggle.  The  defeat  of  the  Negroes  was 
the  defeat  of  an  almost  exclusively  agrarian 
people  in  a  backward  agrarian  society.  Today  the 
Negroes  are  largely  city  dwellers,  and  even  in  the 
South,  industrial  capitalism  has  been  forced  to 
break  up  the  old  agrarian  pattern. 

The  victory  of  the  Ku  Klux  Klan  in  the  1890's 
was  made  possible  because  the  Klan  was  able  to 
isolate  the  Negroes  and  to  separate  them  from  all 
their  allies  among  the  other  working  masses  of 
the  country.  Today,  the  Negro  movement  emerges 
as  a  movement  of  national  scope  with  powerful 
contingents  in  every  city  in  the  country.  The 
growth  of  the  CIO  has  reflected  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  alliance  of  black  and  white  in  the 
industrial  working  class. 

The  program  of  Booker  T.  Washington  was 
one  of  humility  and  acceptance  of  second-class 
citizenship.  Today  the  Negro  community  is  alive 
with  a  great  movement  which  has  as  its  funda- 
mental aim  the  achievement  of  full  economic, 
political  and  social  equality.  Substantial  gains 
have  been  made.  There  has  been,  in  fact,  a  com- 
plete transformation  of  the  movement  of  the 
Negro  people  during  the  past  twenty-five  years. 

This  occurred  at  a  time  when  the  whole 
American  working  class  stood  on  the  threshold  of 
growth  into  political  consciousness.  In  the  great 
awakening  struggles  of  the  1930's  the  working 
class  gained  the  elementary  class  solidarity  of 
unionism.  Today  the  conditions  are  maturing  un- 
der which  it  will  move  forward  towards  full  class 
consciousness  and  a  struggle  for  political  power. 

The  rejection  of  race  prejudice  in  favor  of 
class  solidarity  has  been  a  consistent  phenome- 
non ever  since  the  beginnings  of  the  CIO.  Its 
fulfillment  will  be  the  mark  of  the  full  maturity 
of  the  American  working  class  movement. 

The  struggle  of  the  Negro  people  for  equality 
is  one  of  the  great  dynamic  forces  of  the  labor 
struggle  itself.  The  purpose  of  these  lectures  is  to 
analyze  this  struggle  and  to  show  how  it  will  find 
its  completion  in  the  socialist  society  of  the 
future. 

2.   Exploitation  of  Skin  Color 

We  will   now   consider  the   fact  that   the 


31 


fundamental  element  in  discrimination  against 
Negroes  in  the  United  States  is  special  exploitation 
through  stigmatization  of  skin  color.  Never  in 
history  until  the  rise  of  capitalism  had  the  world 
witnessed  the  division  of  society  by  color. 

The  special  exploitation  of  Negroes  bears 
some  similarity  to  the  exploitation  of  the  colonial 
world  by  the  imperialist  nations,  and  also  to  the 
domination  of  the  small  and  weak  nations  of  Eu- 
rope by  the  rich  and  powerful  empires.  The  simi- 
larity exists  in  this  one  fact:  that  the  Negroes  as 
a  social  group  are  subject  to  discrimination  and 
super-exploitation  above  and  beyond  the  elemen- 
tary exploitation  of  wage  labor  by  capital,  or  the 
oppression  of  the  small  capitalists  by  the  large 
ones.  The  Negro  people  as  a  whole  including  all 
classes  are  subject  to  this  discriminatory 
oppression. 

This  is  the  similarity  of  the  exploitation  of 
Negroes  in  the  United  States  to  that  of  colonial 
peoples  and  other  oppressed  nations.  But  there 
are  also  important  differences,  and  these  differ- 
ences are  more  striking  than  the  similarities. 

Czarist  Russia  conquered  Poland  and  sub- 
jected it  to  a  classical  national  domination.  Great 
Britain's  subjugation  of  India  was  equally  repre- 
sentative of  colonial  oppression.  Here  we  have 
the  oppression  of  whole  nations.  But  the  Negroes 
are  not  a  nation.  Imperialist  exploitation  subor- 
dinated the  national  economy  of  the  weaker  and 
more  backward  countries  of  the  earth  to  that  of 
the  dominant  nations.  This  exploitation  is  made 
possible  through  the  vast  differences  in  historical 
development  of  different  areas  of  the  world. 

Neither  cultural  difference  nor  national  pecu- 
liarity sets  the  Negroes  apart  in  American  society. 
American  capitalist  society  is  a  composite  of  im- 
migrant groups  of  diversified  national  origin.  The 
emergence  of  the  American  nationality  as  one  of 
the  distinct  peoples  of  the  world  is  made  possible 
by  the  subordination  of  these  immigrant  groups 
to  the  dominant  Anglo-American  culture  and  their 
assimilation  into  it.  Of  all  the  immigrant  groups, 
the  Negroes  were  historically  the  best  prepared  to 
assimilate. 

Europeans  coming  to  North  America,  whether 
voluntarily  as  colonists  or  as  temporary  inden- 
tured servants,  had  a  natural  protective  tendency 
to  group  themselves  together  into  closed  com- 
munities in  which  they  could  perpetuate  the 
national  peculiarities  of  language  and  custom 
characteristic  of  their  homeland.  The  existence  of 
large  foreign-speaking  groups,  even  entire  cities 
and  towns  having  newspapers,  foods  and  other 


customs  of  their  European  background,  runs  as 
a  persistent  theme  throughout  the  history  of  the 
United  States. 

The  voyage  of  the  Negroes  to  North  America 
was  not  a  migration,  however,  but  the  process  of 
the  slave  trade.  The  slave  traders,  in  their 
devastation  of  African  life,  did  not  bring  to 
America  a  homogeneous  population  but  represen- 
tatives of  a  thousand  different  tribes. 

The  transition  from  African  tribal  life  to 
exploitation  on  American  plantations  was  suffi- 
ciently abrupt,  terrifying  and  protracted  to  break 
virtually  every  important  bond  which  held  the 
slave  to  his  former  life  and  cultural  background. 
The  rupturing  of  the  cultural  chain  which  might 
have  held  the  Negroes  together  in  some  African 
cultural  homogeneity  was  further  helped  by  the 
slaveowners,  who  would  generally  refuse  to  buy 
more  than  one  slave  from  the  same  tribe  or 
nation. 

Thus  living  as  slaves,  who  came  to  know  no 
other  homeland  than  the  United  States,  knew  no 
other  language  than  English,  held  no  foreign 
allegiance,  the  Negro  people  are  among  the 
oldest  of  all  the  immigrant  groups.  They  are 
essentially  American. 

For  two  and  a  half  centuries,  the  Negroes 
were  the  only  stable  labor  force  in  that  portion 
of  the  North  American  continent  which  became 
the  United  States.  All  other  sections  of  the 
population  were  drawn  into  the  fluidity  of  classes 
which  characterized  the  period  of  westward 
expansion  of  the  capitalist  economy.  The  slaves 
remained  enslaved  from  generation  to  generation. 

In  this  position,  the  Negroes  developed  a 
powerful  folk  culture.  But  this  culture  did  not 
take  the  road  of  an  independent  national  devel- 
opment. Because  it  was  virtually  the  only  real 
American  folk  culture,  the  slaves'  music,  "accent," 
folklore  and  religion  filled  a  cultural  need  for  the 
American  people  as  a  whole.  First  the  slave  cul- 
ture inundated  the  original  Anglo-Saxon  culture 
of  the  South,  virtually  destroying  it.  From  there 
it  went  on  to  fuse  with  the  whole  national  culture 
until  today  those  aspects  of  the  national  culture 
which  are  considered  to  be  "typically"  American 
are  largely  the  result  of  Negro  influence. 

This  is  true  in  song  and  dance,  in  folktales, 
the  romantic  crooner,  blues  singer,  jazz  man  and 
hep-cat;  in  all  popular  art,  in  fact,  and  in  nearly 
every  other  field  in  which  the  needs,  aspirations 
and  frustrations  of  people  are  expressed  through 
a  social  medium. 

Cultural  differences  are  one  of  the  important 


32 


symptoms  of  traditional  national  and  colonial  op- 
pression. However,  it  should  be  obvious  that 
cultural  difference  can  have  no  bearing  upon  the 
special  kind  of  exploitation  to  which  the  Negro 
people  are  subjected.  On  the  contrary,  Negroes 
have  been  a  constant  instrument  of  modification 
of  the  basic  Anglo-American  culture.  This  attests 
to  a  process  of  mutual  assimilation  with  the 
dominant  cultural  group. 

In  spite  of  the  stigma  of  the  black  skin, 
therefore,  the  mutual  assimilation  of  Negro  and 
Anglo-American  appears  as  an  overriding  law  of 
American  historical  development  which  defies  the 
laws  of  segregation,  the  prejudice  of  skin  color, 
and  the  customs  and  social  relations  of  the  Jim 
Crow  system. 

3.   Race  and  Race  Relations 

The  historical  peculiarity  of  such  a  system  of 
special  exploitation  based  upon  skin  color  re- 
quires a  fundamental  analysis  of  the  race  system 
of  social  organization.  The  first  question  which 
arises  is:  what  is  race  and  what  are  race  relations? 

Until  a  few  years  ago  it  was  universally 
agreed  among  scientists  and  laymen  alike  that 
race  was  a  legitimate  biological  category.  That  is, 
that  the  visible  physical  differences  of  skin  color, 
hair  texture,  etc.,  which  are  apparent  among 
people  formed  an  adequate  scientific  basis  for  the 
biological  division  of  the  human  species  into  sub- 
categories generally  called  "races."  Indeed  for  the 
past  century  all  of  physical  anthropology,  which 
is  supposedly  a  branch  of  science,  has  been 
devoted  exclusively  to  the  demonstration  of  the 
race  concept. 

No  two  schools  of  this  so-called  science  were 
ever  able  to  agree  upon  what  the  fundamental 
yardstick  was  for  determining  race.  None  agreed 
precisely  as  to  whether  race  was  really  a  desig- 
nation of  subspecies.  None  agreed  as  to  how 
many  "races"  exist.  Some  said  one  hundred, 
others  said  three.  Fundamental  to  all  of  them  un- 
til recent  times  was  the  idea  of  superiority  and 
inferiority.  They  all  agreed  that  these  obvious 
physical  characteristics  were  somehow  related  to 
fundamental  biological  characteristics  which  ex- 
pressed themselves  in  different  capacities  and 
functions  of  the  human  mind. 

A  more  recent  school  of  liberal  anthropolo- 
gists overthrew  the  concept  of  biological  supe- 
riority and  inferiority.  They  retained  however  the 
basic  concept  of  racial  division.  This  was  the 
theory  of  the  biological  equality  of  separate  races. 

But  once  the  idea  of  superiority  and  inferior- 


ity was  stripped  from  the  race  concept,  it  could 
not  stand,  for  this  idea  was  fundamental  to  the 
very  idea  of  racial  division.  Within  the  last  few 
years  in  a  series  of  brilliant  studies  a  small  group 
of  scientists  has  destroyed  the  basic  theory  and 
method  of  physical  anthropology.  That  is  to  say, 
they  have  made  it  quite  clear  that  there  is  no 
scientific  basis  for  the  contention  that  society  can 
be  divided  into  races  upon  the  basis  of  visible 
physical  characteristics. 

Even  while  destroying  the  foundation  of  the 
race  myth,  however,  most  of  these  scientists  are 
still  in  its  power  and  continue  the  search  for 
some  means  to  justify  racism.  But  the  objective 
result  of  their  destruction  of  the  old  race  concept 
has  been  to  make  any  race  theory  scientifically 
untenable  today. 

What  they  have  proven  in  reality  is  that  there 
is  no  justifiable  biological  category  such  as  "race" 
into  which  to  divide  humanity. 

Nevertheless,  in  defiance  of  this  advance  in 
science,  skin  color  and  Jim  Crow  laws  continue 
to  go  hand  in  hand.  Color  supremacy  and  color 
exploitation  continue  to  persist,  not  only  in  the 
United  States  but  throughout  that  part  of  the 
colonial  world  dominated  by  Anglo-American 
imperialism.  And  the  recent  discovery  that  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  "race"  seems  not  to  have 
affected  the  existence  of  exploitative  relations 
between  people  which  are  in  fact  organized 
around  skin  color  or  "race." 

"Race"  is  therefore  a  reality  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  science  reveals  that  it  does  not  exist.  In 
order  to  discover  the  relation  between  "race"  as 
a  concept  of  physical  anthropology  and  "race"  as 
a  fact  of  social  existence,  it  is  necessary  to 
enquire  into  the  origin  of  both. 

4.    The  Origin  of  the  Race  Concept 

How  did  the  idea  of  race  come  into  being? 
There  was  no  conception  of  race  before  capital- 
ism. Of  all  the  antagonisms  between  peoples  of 
the  ancient  and  medieval  world  not  a  single  one 
had  as  its  focal  point  the  different  appearance  of 
peoples.  On  the  contrary,  older  civilizations  were 
struck  with  the  basic  identity  of  people  as  human 
beings  independent  of  the  differences  in  skin 
color,  hair  texture,  etc. 

To  be  sure,  ever  since  the  division  of  society 
into  classes,  the  owning  classes  have  held  those 
that  they  exploited  in  contempt.  But  in  ancient 
times  the  claims  of  superiority  of  ruling  classes 
never  took  on  a  racial  character. 

The  first  time  in  the  known  history  of  human 


33 


society  that  difference  in  skin  color  was  the 
subject  of  fierce  antagonism  between  people  was 
the  direct  product  of  colonial  and  United  States 
chattel  slavery  created  under  the  impulse  of  the 
development  of  European  capitalism. 

It  was  a  peculiar  combination  of  historical 
accident  and  necessity  by  which  the  Negroes  be- 
come the  slave  class  of  this  modern  slave  system. 

The  climate,  soil  and  location  of  the  southern 
United  States,  the  West  Indies  and  Central  Amer- 
ica were  suitable  for  the  production  of  certain 
crops.  These  crops  could  only  be  produced  in 
marketable  proportions  by  the  use  of  large  scale 
cultivation  methods.  With  a  wide  abundance  of 
free  land,  however,  available  to  all,  free  labor 
could  not  be  held  on  the  land  of  others.  It  was 
therefore  necessary  to  create  a  system  of  compul- 
sory labor.  The  system  of  chattel  slavery  is  quite 
inefficient  and  wasteful.  But  in  this  part  of  the 
western  hemisphere  the  low  cost  of  maintenance 
of  labor  made  it  possible  to  utilize  slavery 
profitably  in  spite  of  its  wastefulness. 

The  native  labor  supply  of  the  American,  Car- 
ibbean and  other  West  Indian  tribes  was  neither 
extensive  enough  nor  so  easily  adaptable  to 
agriculture  as  to  provide  an  adequate  working 
force  of  plantation  labor.  European  peasant  labor 
was  inefficient  in  the  sub-tropical  zone  and 
expensive  to  maintain  and  replace.  Labor  from 
Africa,  on  the  other  hand,  was  plentiful,  accus- 
tomed to  agriculture  and  efficient  in  the  heat  of 
the  sub-tropical  zone. 

Furthermore  a  slave  trade  had  been  going  on 
in  Africa  for  years,  organized  by  the  Arabs.  It  was 
by  no  means  an  extensive  trade  but  it  could  serve 
as  a  starting  point. 

Another  advantage  of  African  labor  was  that 
as  a  chattel  slave— i.e.,  a  piece  of  property— a 
Negro  could  be  identified  by  his  skin. 

Chattel  slavery  was  a  system  of  production 
which  had  been  outgrown  by  European  society 
because  it  was  a  system  of  low  productivity  and 
wastefulness.  Therefore,  the  very  existence  of  a 
mode  of  production  based  upon  the  absolute 
ownership  of  one  human  being  by  another,  after 
it  had  been  so  long  outgrown,  was  repulsive  to 
progressive  people.  Particularly  when  the  world 
was  bursting  with  revolutions  proclaiming  the 
equality  of  all  men.  This  slave  system  became  so 
repulsive  in  fact  that  only  weird  and  perverse 
social  relations  could  contain  it.  To  despise  the 
black  skin  as  the  mark  of  the  slave  was  the  princi- 
pal and  focal  point  of  these  social  relations. 

Thus,   around  the  question  of  skin  color, 


society  in  the  West  Indies  and  North  America 
proper  began  to  divide  itself,  as  social  relations 
degenerated  under  the  slave  system.  First  the 
black  skin  was  despised  because  it  was  the  mark 
of  a  despised  mode  of  production.  But  this 
despised  mode  of  production  was  the  creator  of 
untold  wealth  and  prosperity,  and  capitalist 
society  cannot  despise  riches  for  long.  So  they 
turned  the  whole  matter  on  its  head. 

The  slaves  were  in  an  inferior  position  eco- 
nomically. Gradually,  white  slaveowning  society 
constructed  a  wall  of  color:  that  it  was  not  the 
mode  of  slave  production  which  was  to  be  de- 
spised, but  the  slave:  that  the  reason  the  black 
skin  was  the  mark  of  the  slave  was  that  it  was 
first  the  mark  of  human  inferiority. 

In  this  manner  the  class  problem  of  slavery 
became  complicated  and  confused  by  the  color 
question.  The  slaves,  besides  being  an  exploited 
social  class,  became,  in  the  perverted  thinking  of 
the  dominant  society,  an  inferior  race  as  well. 

It  was  upon  this  foundation  that  the  "sci- 
ence" of  physical  anthropology  built  its  structure. 
In  service  to  the  American  planters,  the  interna- 
tional slave  traders  and  colonial  exploiters,  fake 
scientists  and  politicians  took  a  set  of  perverted 
social  relations  based  upon  a  discarded  social  sys- 
tem and  made  them  into  the  foundation  stones  of 
a  science.  They  justified  slavery  as  natural  and 
completely  desirable  for  those  with  a  colored 
skin. 

And  they  had  great  need  for  such  a  justifi- 
cation. At  the  beginning  of  the  slave  trade  the 
idea  of  spreading  Christianity  to  the  heathen  was 
sufficient  justification  for  Negro  slavery.  Slave 
traders  were  the  missionaries  and  the  slaveowners 
the  priests  of  a  crusade  to  bring  the  word  of  God 
to  heathen  "savages"  who  would  otherwise  be 
doomed  to  eternal  torment  in  their  awful 
ignorance. 

But  the  revolutions  in  Britain,  America  and 
France  stripped  away  the  veil  of  religion  from 
knowledge  and  initiated  the  age  of  science  and 
rationalism.  Social  relations  could  no  longer  be 
explained  by  reference  to  God.  So  a  fake  "scien- 
tific" explanation  of  the  social  relations  of  slavery 
grew  up  to  justify  them.  This  is  the  actual  foun- 
dation of  the  science  of  physical  anthropology. 

Slavery  itself  was  overthrown  in  the  Civil 
War  and  Reconstruction.  But  the  needs  of  the 
American  capitalists  for  compulsory  agricultural 
labor  in  the  South  remained.  A  new  semi- 
capitalistic  mode  of  agriculture  grew  up  in  which 
the  semi-slave  condition  of  the  freed  Negroes  was 


34 


made  permanent  by  the  re-establishment  of  the 
social  relations  of  slavery:  color  discrimination 
buttressed  by  segregation  and  race  prejudice. 

Race  thus  became  a  fetish  of  American  capi- 
talism, a  system  of  special  exploitation  based 
upon  the  social  relations  and  customs  of  a 
previous  mode  of  production,  which  had  itself 
been  an  abomination  to  society.  Stripped  of 
scientific  justification,  what  then  remains  of  race? 
Race  is  a  relation  between  people  based  upon  the 
needs  of  capitalist  exploitation.  The  race  concept 
in  anthropology  grew  out  of  the  social  relations 
of  slavery.  It  was  congealed  by  the  adaptation  of 
these  obsolete  social  relations  to  the  needs  of 
capitalist  production. 

The  concept  of  race  has  now  been  over- 
thrown in  biological  science.  But  race  as  the 
keystone  of  exploitation  remains.  Race  is  a  social 
relation  and  has  only  a  social  reality. 

5.   The  Form  of  Race  Relations 

The  basic  form  of  race  relations  is  segrega- 
tion. In  the  colonial  countries  it  is  expressed  by 
the  voluntary  self-segregation  of  the  white  agents 
of  empire.  But  it  would  be  an  error  to  judge  race 
relations  as  a  whole  by  their  expressions  in  colo- 
nial exploitation.  Race  relations  in  the  colonies 
are  derived  primarily  from  the  existence  of  the 
race  question  in  America  and  particularly  in  the 
United  States. 

In  the  colonies  the  question  of  race  is  de- 
pendent upon  the  specific  needs  of  colonial  ex- 
ploitation. In  the  United  States  special  exploi- 
tation is  dependent  upon  race  relations.  In  the 
colonies  race  is  dependent  upon  exploitation,  but 
here  the  exploitation  is  dependent  upon  race. 

In  this  country  race  relations  take  the  form 
of  the  compulsory  segregation  of  Negroes.  The 
intensity  of  segregation  and  of  all  the  secondary 
race  relations  which  flow  from  it  determine  the 
extent  of  the  special  exploitation.  By  and  large, 
in  the  North  and  West,  where  segregation  is  less 
intensive  than  in  the  South,  the  degree  of  special 
exploitation  of  Negroes  is  far  lower.  Without 
segregation,  discrimination  and  race  relations 
would  soon  disappear. 

It  is  different  in  the  colonies.  Here,  the 
special  colonial  exploitation  to  which  the  masses 
of  Asia,  Africa  and  South  America  are  subjected 
is  dependent  primarily  upon  the  financial,  mili- 
tary and  political  control  which  the  imperialists 
are  able  to  maintain.  The  establishment  of  race 
relations  reflecting  the  concept  of  white  su- 
periority  is    an   important   instrument    of  this 


domination,  but  not  fundamental. 

With  or  without  segregation  the  special 
exploitation  of  colonies  would  continue  upon  the 
basis  of  the  economic,  military  and  political 
power  which  the  U.S.,  Great  Britain,  France,  etc. 
wield  over  the  colonial  world. 

The  completeness  and  rigidity  of  segregation 
in  the  United  States  is  demonstrated  principally 
at  the  points  where  it  tends  to  break  down.  The 
most  ticklish  problem  of  such  a  system  as  the 
American  race  system  is  inevitably— what  to  do 
with  the  children  of  mixed  marriages;  or,  more 
precisely,  how  to  determine  racially  people  of 
mixed  parentage.  Marriage  between  Negro  and 
white  is  illegal  in  the  majority  of  states.  But  the 
offspring  of  illegal  marriage  is  nevertheless  taken 
care  of  by  far-seeing  lawmakers.  In  some  cases, 
anyone  with  so  much  as  one-sixty-fourth  Negro 
ancestry  is  a  Negro. 

This  illustrates  the  completeness  of  the  segre- 
gation system  in  the  U.S.  It  demonstrates  in  the 
first  place  one  of  the  important  differences  be- 
tween race  relations  and  other  social  relations 
under  capitalism. 

In  no  other  system  of  social  relations  is 
segregation  the  principal  form.  There  are  rela- 
tions between  nations  of  many  different  varieties 
based  upon  the  international  rivalry  for  markets, 
and  upon  other  points  of  international  conflict. 
However,  throughout  history  it  has  only  been 
necessary  for  an  individual  or  group  to  adopt  the 
language  and  customs  of  another  nation  in  order 
to  become  a  part  of  it. 

Among  classes  it  is  only  necessary  to  change 
economic  status  to  pass  over  class  lines.  The 
worker  can  accumulate  money,  invest  it  in  a  capi- 
talist enterprise  and  find  the  road  to  the  capitalist 
class.  The  capitalist  who  loses  his  capital  and 
must  work  for  another  to  support  himself  de- 
scends to  the  working  class. 

While  in  the  present  stage  of  monopoly  capi- 
tal there  is  greater  class  rigidity  than  in  the  early 
days,  and  it  is  now  virtually  impossible  for  a 
worker  to  become  a  capitalist,  still  it  is  funda- 
mental to  capitalist  society  that  it  provide  means 
for  the  passing  over  from  one  class  to  another  as 
economic  development  requires.  In  the  United 
States  the  worship  of  this  machinery  is  a  national 
creed  with  the  constant  reiteration  that  anyone 
can  become  a  capitalist,  anyone  can  become 
president. 

The  caste  system  of  India  represents  a  de- 
cayed stratification  of  occupational  groups  within 
classes.  Yet  it  provides  the  machinery  both  for 


35 


individuals  to  change  their  caste  station  either 
upward  or  downward  in  the  social  scale  and  for 
whole  castes  to  change  their  social  standing.  It  is 
only  race  relations  which  are  formally  immutable 
and  absolute.  A  Negro  cannot  become  white. 

In  this  comparison  it  is  obvious  that  race 
relations  are  in  a  separate  category  from  the  other 
basic  social  relations  of  society. 

The  caste  system  was  the  necessary  product 
of  the  stagnation  and  decay  of  Indian  feudalism. 
National  relations  are  the  inevitable  product  of 
the  development  of  commodity  production.  Class 
relations  are  the  inevitable  result  of  the  break-up 
of  primitive  communism  and  the  establishment  of 
private  property.  All  of  these  have  the  historical 
justification  of  economic  necessity,  are  firmly 
intertwined  with  great  historical  epochs,  and  are 
inseparable  from  them. 

But  race  relations  have  no  such  firm  foun- 
dation. The  racial  structure  of  American  society 
is  a  disease  of  the  social  system  and  has  neither 
historical  justification  nor  economic  necessity,  in 
the  sense  that  capitalism  has  existed  for  centuries 
in  other  countries  without  the  disfiguration  of 
race  antagonisms. 

Any  attempt  to  classify  the  Negro  question  as 
a  caste  or  national  question  serves  only  to  con- 
fuse it.  For  such  a  classification  lends  to  race 
relations  some  of  the  stability  and  historical 
justification  of  the  centuries  upon  centuries  of 
Indian  civilization,  or  the  worldwide  development 
of  nations.  Race  relations  are  products  only  of 
capitalism,  and  specifically  of  American  capi- 
talism, and  will  disappear  entirely  without  leaving 
much  of  a  trace,  with  the  disappearance  of  the 
capitalist  mode  of  production. 

The  absurd  stringency  of  laws  which  state 
that  a  person  six  generations  removed  from  Negro 
ancestry  is  a  Negro,  when  in  actuality  a  Negro  is 
only  a  person  with  a  dark  skin,  signifies  the 
instability  and  artificiality  of  the  system  and  the 
extent  to  which  fantastic  and  artificial  measures 
are  required  to  maintain  its  form — segregation. 

For  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  law  to  keep 
a  visibly  white  person  of  one-sixty-fourth  Negro 
ancestry  in  the  ghetto  in  segregation  with  dark 
people,  but  to  prevent  social  contact  between 
white  and  black  in  the  beginning  of  such  a  family 
descent  by  stigmatizing  the  offspring  of  mixed 
marriages  as  black.  It  is  in  the  United  States  that 
the  form  of  race  relations  reveals  its  basic  content 
and  absurdity:  this  is  the  naked  or  pure  form  of 
the  race  question. 


6.   International  Aspects  of  the  Race  Question 

The  system  and  ideology  of  white  supremacy 
is  an  important  weapon  of  western  imperialist 
domination  of  the  colonial  countries  of  Asia, 
Africa,  Asia  Minor  and  South  America.  Spe- 
cifically, it  is  those  areas  dominated  by  either 
Britain  or  the  United  States  where  race  is  a  most 
prominent  feature  of  colonial  exploitation.  It  is 
important  to  note  also  that  it  was  Britain  in  the 
19th  and  the  U.S.  in  the  20th  century  which  rep- 
resented the  most  effective  and  ruthless  system  of 
oppression  of  the  darker  peoples  of  the  colonial 
world. 

There  is  no  international  rigidity  in  the 
application  of  the  international  system  of  white 
supremacy,  as  there  is  in  the  United  States.  It  may 
take  the  violent  form  of  terrible  oppression  of  the 
Bantu  in  South  Africa,  or  the  comparatively 
benevolent  form  of  white  domination  through 
ostensible  equality  as  in  Hawaii.  But  in  all 
circumstances  it  retains  fundamental  features  in 
common  which  reveal  its  role. 

The  idea  of  white  superiority  in  China  of  a 
few  years  ago  or  in  India  is  certainly  believed  to 
impress  the  "natives"  with  a  sense  of  their  own 
inferiority,  and  therefore  a  willingness  to  accept 
exploitation  and  humiliation  by  the  white  oppres- 
sor as  a  law  of  nature.  There  is,  however,  no 
evidence  of  great  success  in  this  field. 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  quite  evident  that  the 
main  value  of  the  ideology  of  white  supremacy 
is  in  a  situation  where  a  thin  stratum  of  white 
agents  is  required  to  maintain  social  homogeneity 
while  administering  the  affairs  of  the  imperialist 
rulers.  It  is  necessary  to  foster  among  them  a 
racial  contempt,  even  hatred,  for  the  subject 
populations.  Without  color  prejudice,  the  inevi- 
table tendency  of  such  colonial  agencies  is  to 
become  absorbed  into  the  population  and  to 
develop  sympathies  and  allegiances  in  contradic- 
tion to  their  function  as  agents  of  empire:  they 
would  tend  to  sympathize  with  the  oppressed. 

Today  in  the  twilight  of  imperialism  the 
ideology  of  racial  hatred  assumes  even  greater 
importance  than  during  the  heyday  of  the  "white 
man's  burden."  Today  questions  are  being  settled 
not  by  administrators  supported  by  a  police  with 
a  small  military  force  held  in  reserve,  but  by  large 
armies  of  occupation  and  subjection  whose  mo- 
rale and  social  homogeneity  must  be  maintained 
whether  in  actual  warfare  as  in  Korea,  or  in 
preventive  occupation  as  in  Japan.  The  problem 
in  the  U.S.  Army  is  considerably  complicated  by 


36 


the  presence  of  Negro  soldiers  who  do  not  accept 
the  specific  doctrine  of  white  supremacy.  Never- 
theless, race  prejudice  remains  an  important 
condition  of  the  stability  of  imperialist  rule  by  the 
United  States  throughout  the  world.  This  condi- 
tion indicates  the  delicate  equilibrium  upon 
which  all  imperialist  stability  rests. 

Throughout  the  colonial  world  we  see  expres- 
sions of  racism.  However,  in  every  case  they  are 
derivative  phenomena  dependent  upon  the  Ameri- 
can system  of  race  relations. 

It  is  only  in  the  United  States  that  race 
relations  assume  a  pure  form.  That  is,  it  is  only 
here  that  skin  color  alone,  independent  of  cul- 
tural difference,  geographical  remoteness  or 
national  identity,  forms  the  basis  for  discrim- 
ination and  special  exploitation. 

In  the  Union  of  South  Africa  race  relations 
assume  the  most  violent  and  brutal  form.  A  white 
European  minority  of  two  million  exercises  domi- 
nation over  eight  million  Africans.  However,  the 
racial  structure  of  this  society  is  considerably 
newer  than  its  American  counterpart,  and  its 
builders  have  always  looked  to  the  United  States 
for  guidance  and  inspiration. 

As  late  as  1877  only  one-tenth  of  the  conti- 
nent of  Africa  was  under  imperialist  domination. 
It  is  mainly  from  this  date  forward  that  white 
supremacy  has  asserted  itself.  For  all  the  violence 
of  race  relations  there,  it  is  only  recently  that  the 
rulers  of  South  Africa  have  made  the  final  attempt 
to  "purify"  the  race  question  along  American  lines 
by  the  exclusion  of  mulattoes  from  the  electorate 
along  with  the  blacks. 

The  main  concern,  however,  of  the  Bantu,  as 
of  the  mulattoes,  is  not  one  of  color  but  of  their 
colonial-national  status.  The  struggle  of  the 
native  inhabitants  of  Africa  for  emancipation  will 
on  the  other  hand  probably  take  the  form  of  a 
color  struggle,  as  did  the  18th  century  revolution 
in  San  Domingo  which  established  the  Republic 
of  Haiti.  But  its  essence  will  be  that  of  a  national 
struggle  against  colonial  oppression. 

In  the  African  colonies,  as  in  all  colonial 
countries,  the  race  question,  however  severe,  is 
subordinated  to  the  needs  of  these  peoples  for 
national  emancipation  and  the  end  of  all  colo- 
nialism. The  cultural  differences  between  the 
European  and  African  population,  when  express- 
ing the  relation  between  oppressor  and  op- 
pressed, take  on  an  economic  and  socially  antag- 
onistic character  which  is  only  reinforced  and 
stabilized  by  the  doctrine  of  white  supremacy. 

Thus  in  the  Union  of  South  Africa,  where 


race  relations  occupy  only  a  secondary  and  sup- 
porting position  in  special  exploitation  and  are 
subordinated  to  the  national  oppression  of  the 
native  Africans,  these  race  relations  have  a  firmer 
foundation  than  in  the  United  States. 

During  the  days  of  chattel  slavery  where  race 
relations  were  the  expression  of  a  special  mode 
of  production,  they  enjoyed  such  a  greater  sta- 
bility. The  slave  was  the  object  of  special  ex- 
ploitation primarily  because  he  was  a  slave,  sec- 
ondarily because  he  was  a  Negro.  Today,  it  is  not 
because  he  is  a  worker  that  a  Negro  is  Jim- 
Crowed  but  because  he  is  black. 

Thus  in  the  economic  aspects  of  exploitation, 
the  race  question  in  the  United  States  demon- 
strates its  fundamental  character.  In  every  other 
instance  racial  exploitation  merely  serves  as  an 
auxiliary  weapon  to  fortify  national  or  colonial 
exploitation  or  some  combination  of  the  two. 
Elsewhere  it  is  accompanied  by  wide  differences 
in  economic  and  cultural  development. 

That  the  Negro  question  in  the  United  States 
stands  out  nakedly  as  a  simple  matter  of  skin 
color  indicates  in  the  first  place  the  extremely 
unstable  foundation  upon  which  it  rests.  But  race 
antagonism  is  fundamental  to  the  United  States 
social  structure  under  capitalism.  The  unstable 
foundation  of  the  Jim  Crow  system  thus  reveals 
one  of  the  weaknesses  of  the  whole  social 
structure. 

In  the  second  place,  as  derivative  forms  of 
racial  discrimination,  white  supremacy  in  other 
parts  of  the  world  is  dependent  upon  the  Ameri- 
can pattern.  And  just  as  when  American  imperial- 
ism is  overthrown  and  replaced  by  a  workers 
state  it  will  remove  the  last  props  from  the  col- 
lapsing capitalist  structure  throughout  the  world, 
so  will  the  end  of  the  Jim  Crow  system  in  the 
United  States  cut  away  the  groundwork  from 
white  supremacy  and  race  relations  in  the 
colonial  world. 

7.    The  U.S.  as  the  "Melting  Pot" 

It  is  finally  necessary  to  consider  the  problem 
of  Negro  equality  and  assimilation  into  American 
society  in  relation  to  the  United  States  in  its 
function  as  a  "melting  pot"  of  nationalities. 

The  original  strength  and  vitality  of  American 
capitalism  from  its  inception  in  the  18th  century 
was  founded  upon  two  pillars.  First,  the  capitalist 
nature  of  the  impulse  of  the  British  colonization 
of  the  eastern  seaboard.  This  established  capital- 
ist and  semi-capitalist  enterprise  as  the  basic  and 
original  mode  of  production,  unfettered  by  feudal 


37 


restrictions.  Second,  the  uniting  of  the  colonies 
by  a  single  language  and  a  single  Anglo-Saxon 
culture. 

Scores  of  European  nationality  groups  have 
been  more  or  less  successfully  assimilated  into  the 
American  nation.  The  difference  in  the  problems 
of  these  nationalities  and  those  of  the  Negroes  is 
easily  discernible  upon  examination. 

From  the  very  beginning  other  nationality 
groups  attempted  to  retain  their  national  identity, 
as  I  have  mentioned  before.  But  the  American  rul- 
ing class  ruthlessly  thwarted  them  all.  First,  by 
cutting  away  the  economic  groundwork  upon 
which  a  national  minority  might  stand  and  devel- 
op an  independent  national  system  of  commodity 
production  and  distribution.  Second,  by  forced 
assimilation  or  "Americanization." 

Anglo-American  domination  received  a  great 
impetus  by  the  victory  of  the  first  American 
revolution.  As  the  capitalist  class  came  into 
undisputed  control  of  the  national  state  power  in 
the  1860  elections  and  the  Civil  War  which  fol- 
lowed, it  developed  the  doctrine  of  "Americanize 
the  aliens." 

As  the  United  States  entered  upon  the  impe- 
rialist epoch  in  World  War  I,  forced  assimilation 
of  alien  groups  began  to  be  transformed  into  their 
exclusion.  United  States  imperialism  could  no 
longer  afford  the  time  required  for  Americaniza- 
tion. It  always  required  at  least  from  one  to  two 
generations  to  complete  the  process  of  assimila- 
tion. And  during  these  two  generations  the  for- 
eign groups  were  subject  to  great  disaffection 
from  the  capitalist  class,  either  in  the  direction  of 
embracing  the  working  class  movement,  or  in  lack 
of  enthusiasm  for  the  national  chauvinism  and 
bigotry  required  to  whip  up  the  war  spirit  against 
a  rival  empire. 

The  latest  manifestation  of  this  transfor- 
mation in  national  policy  from  forced  assimilation 
to  exclusion  is  the  McCarran  Act. 

Forced  assimilation  arose  out  of  the  national 
needs  of  capitalist  production  and  distribution 
which  require  a  nation,  with  a  common  culture 
and  language  and  a  political  unity,  as  the  frame- 
work of  its  development. 

The  more  modern  hysteria  over  "aliens" 
dating  from  World  War  I  results  from  the  imperi- 
alist epoch  in  which  the  United  States  ruling  class 
begins  to  confront  enemies:  the  working  class  or- 
ganized in  opposition  to  it  at  home,  and  on  the 
other  hand  its  international  imperialist  rivals.  The 
aliens  are  a  danger  in  both  cases.  The  American 
capitalist  class  wants  to  be  prepared  to  go  to  war 


against  any  country  in  the  world  without  concern 
for  the  national  origins  and  therefore  susceptibili- 
ties of  important  sections  of  its  population. 

Some  of  the  conditions  imposed  by  the  ruling 
class  upon  immigrant  groups  seem  calculated  to 
have  the  opposite  effect  of  assimilation.  They  are 
herded  into  more  or  less  isolated  and  segregated 
slums  and  subjected  to  discriminatory  conditions 
of  exploitation.  Undeniably,  this  process  in  part 
encourages  tendencies  toward  the  retention  of 
national  homogeneity  of  the  immigrant  group. 
However,  this  is  only  the  method  by  which  the 
ruling  class  sets  down  its  terms  of  assimilation: 
that  the  foreigners  are  welcome,  that  they  may 
and  must  become  Americans,  but  only  in  the  posi- 
tion of  highly  exploited  laborers  in  the  great 
industrial  establishments  of  American  capitalism. 

Discrimination  against  these  nationality 
groups  prevails  in  different  sections  of  the 
country  for  different  periods  of  time.  It  is  accom- 
panied by  "native"  contempt,  bigotry,  intolerance 
and  prejudice.  The  fundamental  source  of  this  in- 
tolerance is  in  the  capitalist  intolerance  of  any 
alien  culture  which  threatens  to  break  up  the  or- 
derly pattern  of  commodity  production  and  distri- 
bution, and  the  political  unity  of  the  state.  It  is 
directed  against  the  language  and  customs  of  the 
foreign  group  with  the  object  of  eliminating 
them. 

This  national  intolerance  is  part  of  the 
process  of  the  assimilation  of  the  national  minor- 
ities. It  is,  in  effect,  the  demand  by  American  cap- 
italism upon  the  Germans,  for  instance,  to  cease 
being  Germans  and  become  Americans.  "Speak 
English!  Talk  American!"  are  the  slogans  of  this 
intolerance. 

While  the  demand  upon  the  foreign  nation- 
alities to  assimilate  is  at  the  root  of  this  national 
intolerance,  the  direct  opposite  is  the  case  when 
we  deal  with  racial  discrimination.  The  object  to 
be  gained  in  the  case  of  the  Negroes  is  precisely 
to  prevent  their  assimilation. 

The  race  concept  itself  arose  out  of  the  need 
to  demarcate  the  Negroes  as  slaves  and  to  build 
upon  that  difference  in  skin  color  a  wall  sepa- 
rating them  from  the  rest  of  society.  Without 
racial  separation  in  the  United  States,  there 
would  be  no  possibility  of  maintaining  the 
discriminatory  social  and  economic  practices 
which  are  fundamental  to  the  economic  and 
social  well-being  of  American  capitalism,  and  its 
role  in  the  world  today. 

As  we  have  seen,  in  many  fundamental  as- 
pects of  United  States  culture:  language,  folklore, 


38 


etc.,  there  is  a  constant  mutual  assimilation  of  the 
various  characteristics  of  the  Anglo-American 
with  those  of  the  Negro.  But  this  process  of  as- 
similation is  halted  by  economic  and  social  rela- 
tions adapted  from  slavery  whenever  it  touches 
the  possibility  of  economic,  political  or  social 
equality. 

So  far  we  have  considered  the  race  question 


in  its  most  general  aspects.  The  nature  of  the 
concept  of  race,  its  history  and  development,  and 
its  relation  to  other  social  phenomena  under  cap- 
italism. Next  Friday  night  we  will  consider  it  in 
its  actual  existence:  the  Jim  Crow  system  in  the 
United  States,  its  roots  and  branches,  and  how  to 
eliminate  it.  We  will  show  the  only  possible  way 
in  which  the  goal  of  equality  can  be  achieved. 


II.  The  Struggle  for  Equality 


Last  week  we  discussed  the  nature  of  race, 
and  the  nature  of  race  relations,  their  origin, 
history  and  significance.  We  concluded  that  there 
is  no  scientific  basis  for  the  subdivision  of 
humanity  into  races.  Secondly,  we  noted  that 
American  society  is,  nevertheless,  divided  into 
races,  and  is  disfigured  and  distorted  by  this 
division. 

Dr.  Du  Bois  has  stated  that  the  problem  of 
the  20th  century  is  the  color  problem.  It  is  quite 
obvious  that  he  was  referring  to  the  division  of 
the  world  between  the  white  exploiting  nations 
of  the  West  and  the  colonial  countries,  inhabited 
by  people  of  darker  skin  color. 

Dr.  Du  Bois  was  only  partially  right.  It  is  true 
that  imperialism  is  the  most  significant  politico- 
economic  development  of  this  century.  It  is  equal- 
ly true  that  imperialist  exploitation  largely  takes 
the  form  of  domination  by  the  so-called  white 
world  over  colored  peoples.  This  exploitation, 
however,  is  not  based  upon  color  but  upon  the 
superior  military,  economic  and  political  power 
which  one  part  of  the  world  wields  over  the 
other.  The  skin  color  of  the  enslavers,  whether 
they  are  British,  Spanish  or  Japanese,  makes  no 
difference  so  long  as  it  is  backed  up  by  military 
and  economic  might.  The  imperialist  exploiters 
maintain  their  rule  over  the  colonial  peoples  not 
on  the  basis  of  color,  but  by  their  power.  They 
do,  of  course,  try  to  reinforce  their  rule  by 
imbuing  their  colonial  subjects  with  a  sense  of 
inferiority.  They  are  aided  in  this  by  the  fact  that 
the  imperialist  overlords,  with  the  sole  exception 
of  the  Japanese,  are  of  the  white-skinned  race, 
while  those  they  rule  over  are  all  peoples  with 
black,  brown  or  yellow  skin.  However,  it  is  only 
in  the  United  States  that  color,  by  itself,  plays  a 
real  and  dominant  role  in  social  relations.  Here, 
the  Negro  people,  a  group  of  darker  skin  than  the 
average,  are  subjected  to  special  exploitation, 
discrimination  and  segregation,  merely  because 
of  their  skin  pigmentation,  which  assigns  them  to 


a  subordinate  racial  position  in  American  society. 

Although  we  cannot  recognize  the  existence 
of  races  as  a  biological  fact,  still  we  must 
recognize  the  existence  of  races  as  social  groups, 
so  organized  by  the  ruling  class  for  the  purpose 
of  capitalist  exploitation. 

We  will  now  discuss  the  actual  political, 
social  and  economic  roots  of  the  American  system 
of  race  relations  under  the  following  specific 
headings: 

1.  The  southern  social  system. 

2.  The  industrialization  of  the  South. 

3.  The  Negro  struggle  and  the  demand  for 
equality. 

4.  Race  consciousness. 

5.  Stalinism  and  the  question  of  self- 
determination. 

6.  The  nature  of  prejudice. 

7.  The  Negroes  and  the  labor  movement. 

8.  Capitalist  politics. 

9.  The  final  solution  of  the  problems  of 
discrimination. 

1.   The  Southern  Social  System 

We  have  demonstrated  previously  how  the 
United  States  is  the  worldwide  center  of  the  sys- 
tem of  racial  discrimination.  It  is  necessary  now 
to  investigate  the  specific  source  of  the  racial  sys- 
tem in  the  United  States.  In  other  words,  what 
are  the  social  and  economic  forces  which  prevent 
the  assimilation  of  Negroes  into  American 
society? 

The  practice  of  discrimination  in  the  United 
States  has  its  focal  point  in  the  southern  social 
structure.  At  the  end  of  the  Civil  War,  having 
neither  land  nor  political  rights,  the  Negro  agri- 
cultural population  was  forced  into  the  peonage 
of  sharecropping.  A  social  system  was  built 
around  this  arrangement. 

The  capitalist  class  has  had  a  four-fold 
motive  for  perpetuating  this  system.  First,  share- 
cropping  made  it  possible  to  maintain  the  planta- 


39 


tion  system  in  southern  agriculture,  even  after  the 
destruction  of  chattel  slavery  which  was  its 
fundamental  basis.  If  the  Civil  War  and  Recon- 
struction had  succeeded  in  breaking  up  the  large 
plantations  the  creation  of  an  independent  small 
farmer  class  would  very  probably  have  produced 
diversified  farming. 

By  means  of  the  southern  Jim  Crow  system, 
the  capitalist  class  was  able  to  prevent  the 
development  of  free  farming  and  retain  the 
plantation. 

Second,  the  degradation  of  the  Negro,  his 
loss  of  political  rights  and  all  means  of  economic 
defense,  has  made  it  possible  for  the  capitalist 
class,  in  conjunction  with  the  plantation  owners, 
to  extract  tremendous  super-profits  from  under- 
paid Negro  labor,  not  only  on  the  plantations  but 
in  the  many  industries  of  the  South. 

Third,  the  Negro  has  always  been  the  symbol 
of  southern  labor  as  a  whole.  Hence  the  greater 
degradation  of  all  labor  there  and  the  consequent 
lower  standard  of  living  for  all  workers. 

This  degradation  of  labor  has  enabled  the 
capitalist  class  to  extract  extra  profits  through  the 
ruthless  super-exploitation  of  a  whole  geograph- 
ical segment  of  its  working  class. 

The  fourth  stake  which  American  capitalism 
has  in  the  perpetuation  of  the  southern  Jim  Crow 
system  is  that  it  is  fundamental  to  the  political 
stability  of  the  nation  under  capitalism. 

The  South  is  the  only  area  where  politics  is 
in  no  degree  dependent  upon  the  people,  where 
the  minority  of  wealthy  Bourbons  and  capitalists 
rule  directly  and  nakedly.  Through  the  southern 
Democratic  Party  the  capitalist  class  is  at  all  times 
able  to  carry  out  its  basic  interests.  Every  social 
crisis  has  revealed  this  political  dependence  of  the 
capitalist  class  upon  the  southern  Democratic 
Party  which  doesn't  have  to  answer  to  labor  for 
its  actions. 

The  Taft-Hartley  Act  and  the  McCarran  Act, 
two  of  the  most  vicious  pieces  of  pro-capitalist, 
anti-labor  legislation  in  the  history  of  Congress, 
were  not  the  result  of  a  Republican  majority,  but 
of  a  balance  of  power  achieved  by  the  southern 
Democrats. 

These  are  the  main  features  of  the  southern 
system  and  make  it  necessary  to  conclude  that 
Jim  Crow  is  a  fundamental  and  integral  part  of 
American  capitalism. 

The  wealthy  white  classes  could  not  attain  such 
total  power  as  they  wield  in  the  South  by  their  own 
forces  alone. 

The  Bourbon  rule  of  the   South  today  is 


founded  upon  the  destruction  of  the  glorious 
revolutionary  movement  of  the  Reconstruction 
and  the  subsequent  failure  of  the  Populist  revolt. 
The  wealthy  whites  could  not  possibly  have 
subdued  these  movements  with  their  own  small 
numbers.  A  mass  support  in  a  significant  segment 
of  the  population  was  necessary  to  organize  the 
Ku  Klux  Klan  and  to  elevate  the  ruling  classes  to 
their  present  position.  This  mass  base  of  support 
was  to  be  found  primarily  in  the  white  middle 
classes  of  the  southern  cities  and  towns,  and  the 
better-off  section  of  the  small  farmers. 

One  striking  feature  of  the  South  under 
slavery  was  the  absence  of  the  commercial  and 
industrial  towns  which  were  so  characteristic  of 
the  North.  This  was  quite  normal  in  an  agrarian 
society  dominated  by  huge  plantations,  which 
provided  no  basis  for  a  rich  internal  market. 
Without  towns  it  follows  that  there  was  no 
sizable  urban  middle  class. 

Commercial  towns  arose  during  the  Recon- 
struction under  the  impulse  of  capitalist  economy 
in  agriculture.  The  development  of  these  towns 
produced  a  middle  class. 

Everybody  knows  something  of  the  fierce 
competition  which  goes  on  among  the  middle 
classes  all  the  time.  They  must  compete  not  only 
against  each  other,  but  also  against  big  business 
which  has  more  efficient  and  cheaper  ways  of 
doing  things. 

But  the  middle  class  of  shopkeepers,  farmers, 
independent  artisans,  doctors  and  lawyers— small 
businessmen  of  all  kinds— furnishes  the  only 
avenue  of  escape  from  wage  slavery  into  the 
ranks  of  the  capitalist  class.  Consequently,  the 
lower  the  middle  class  the  more  intense  and 
feverish  is  the  competition  for  survival. 

It  is  not  hard  to  see  that  a  tremendous 
advantage  would  be  gained  by  a  section  of  the 
actual  or  potential  middle  class  if  it  could  arbi- 
trarily exclude  half  of  the  population  from  the 
right  to  compete  with  them  for  these  occupations. 

Immediately  after  the  Civil  War  privileged 
poor  whites  established  themselves  in  middle 
class  occupations.  They  made  of  these  positions 
a  white  monopoly  by  the  organized  terrorism  of 
the  Ku  Klux  Klan.  One  of  the  most  important 
achievements  of  terrorism  during  the  later  days 
of  the  Reconstruction  was  the  complete  exclusion 
of  the  Negroes  from  the  general  middle  class. 

It  was  principally  this  movement  of  the  mid- 
dle class  organized  into  the  Klan,  channelized  and 
controlled  by  the  capitalists  and  landowners, 
which  gave  to  these  new  rulers  complete  political 


40 


control  over  the  South. 

The  white  monopoly  of  privileged  middle 
class  positions  tended  to  extend  down  into  the 
higher  skilled  sections  of  the  working  class  itself, 
gaining  additional  points  of  support  for  the  rule 
of  the  new  Bourbons. 

A  further  expression  of  the  privileges  held  by 
the  white  middle  class  of  the  South  is  to  be  found 
in  their  traditional  exploitation  of  domestic 
servants. 

It  has  been  usual  in  the  South  that  for  a 
couple  of  dollars  a  week,  carfare  and  old  clothes 
a  white  family  can  have  a  maid.  And  for  slightly 
more,  a  gardener  or  a  cook. 

In  this  way,  due  to  the  extreme  degradation 
of  labor,  it  has  been  possible  for  the  southern 
middle  class  to  live  in  a  condition  of  luxury  and 
freedom  from  all  domestic  labor  which  is  found 
only  among  the  ruling  classes  of  other  social 
systems  and  the  colonial  agents  of  imperialism. 

Thus,  the  mass  base  of  the  naked  rule  of  the 
capitalists  and  landowners  is  revealed  as  a  privi- 
leged middle  class  and  labor  aristocracy  which 
owes  its  special  position  to  the  racial  division  of 
American  society. 

Herein  is  revealed  the  sociological  and  histor- 
ical antecedent  of  German  fascism.  The  Nazi  Party 
and  the  Storm  Troopers  are  almost  the  exact  pro- 
totype of  the  Bourbon  Party  and  the  Ku  Klux 
Klan.  The  Nazis,  like  the  Klan,  were  essentially  of 
the  middle  class.  They  served  the  basic  interests 
of  the  large  capitalists  while  defeating  and  de- 
moralizing the  working  class  and  creating  the 
basis  for  the  totalitarian  dictatorship,  just  as  the 
Klan  operated  against  the  Negroes  and  the  white 
Populists.  The  principal  ideological  weapon  of 
both  was  racism  and  their  principal  organi- 
zational weapon,  terrorism. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Nazis  sent  official 
and  unofficial  observers  to  the  United  States  to 
study  and  learn  American  methods  of  racial 
discrimination  and  segregation  to  be  applied  to 
persecution  of  the  Jews. 

But  the  comparison  of  the  South  with  Nazi 
Germany  must  take  account  of  two  important  dif- 
ferences. First,  the  white  middle  class  had  a 
genuine  advantage  to  exploit  in  the  southern 
states  in  maintaining  a  racial  monopoly  of  its 
privileges.  In  Germany  the  "Aryan"  middle  class 
found  only  complete  destruction  and  humiliation 
by  the  capitalists  after  the  destruction  of  the  labor 
movement  and  the  Jewish  people  was  completed. 

The  second  difference  is  that  Negroes  are  a 
fundamental  part  of  the  southern  working  force. 


The  object  of  terrorism  is  to  make  them  more 
profitable  workers.  In  the  case  of  the  Jews  the 
object  of  the  Nazis  was  not  to  put  the  Jews  "in 
their  place"  but  to  exterminate  them. 

2.   The  Industrialization  of  the  South 

We  said  at  the  beginning  of  last  week's 
lecture  that  the  material  conditions  surrounding 
the  Negro  struggle  have  undergone  a  funda- 
mental transformation  since  the  days  of  Booker 
T.  Washington's  Atlanta  speech. 

The  change  is  to  be  seen  not  only  in  the 
great  migration  of  the  Negroes  northward  and 
westward  which  has  created  a  new  environment 
in  the  basic  industrial  sectors  of  the  nation's 
economy.  Principally,  the  change  has  occurred  in 
the  South  itself. 

The  most  notable  facet  of  the  present  eco- 
nomic picture  in  the  South  is  the  entry  of  monop- 
oly capital  into  all  phases  of  economic  life  and 
the  industrialization  which  has  taken  place  in  this 
once  exclusively  agricultural  area. 

In  search  for  cheaper  labor  markets,  and  to 
accommodate  the  needs  of  the  war  economy, 
American  capitalism  has  been  forced  to  abandon 
its  earlier  conception  of  the  agrarian  South  as 
mainly  a  source  of  raw  materials  and  very  limited 
industrial  development.  Modern  industry  has 
pushed  some  of  its  most  advanced  developments 
into  the  very  heart  of  the  cotton  belt. 

In  building  its  new  industrial  empires  in  the 
South,  however,  big  capital  goes  all  the  way.  The 
new  developments  tend  to  become  large  mass 
production  units,  organized  around  monopolistic 
company-dominated  industrial  towns.  In  these 
towns  the  worker  is  born  in  a  company  shack, 
buys  his  groceries  at  the  company  store,  works  in 
the  company  sweatshop,  and  is  buried  in  the 
company  graveyard. 

In  all  fields  of  the  modern  South  monopoly 
takes  over.  The  recent  hearings  during  the  half- 
hearted anti-trust  action  against  the  A&P  monop- 
oly revealed  the  process  by  which  the  free 
farmers  are  being  exterminated.  In  merchandis- 
ing, as  in  everything  else,  it  is  the  same  story:  big 
business  invades  the  South.  And  there  is  no  room 
for  a  white  privileged  middle  class  in  this  scheme 
of  things. 

Furthermore,  the  development  of  modern 
industry  has  destroyed  the  role  of  the  artisan  and 
skilled  worker. 

The  mass  base  of  the  southern  capitalist 
dictatorship  has  thus  been  undermined  by  the 
very  process  of  capitalist  production. 


41 


The  next  remarkable  feature  of  the  present- 
day  South  is  the  tendency  for  the  functions  of  the 
lynch  mob  to  be  taken  over  by  the  police,  the 
military  and  individual  terrorists.  This  is  in- 
terpreted by  many  people  to  be  a  sign  of  the 
strength  of  the  southern  social  system;  that  now 
at  last  the  lynchings  can  be  done  "legally"  and 
the  State  takes  official  responsibility  for  them. 

But  in  reality,  this  condition  reflects  the 
weakened  power  and  reduced  social  weight  of  the 
white  middle  class.  It  is  no  longer  able  to 
maintain  its  traditional  function  of  mass  terrorism 
against  the  Negroes.  The  increased  capacity  of  the 
Negroes  for  resistance  by  their  concentration  in 
industrial  centers  has  come  hand  in  hand  with 
this  weakening  of  the  white  middle  classes. 

Thus  capitalism,  by  the  logic  of  its  own  devel- 
opment, has  undermined  the  very  social  foun- 
dation upon  which  it  depends  for  support  and  at 
the  same  time  increased  the  ability  of  the 
oppressed  to  defend  themselves. 

Both  German  and  Italian  fascism  were  raised 
to  power  and  stabilized  by  the  terrorism  of  the 
middle  class  against  the  working  class.  But  after 
achieving  power,  the  fascist  leaders,  as  represen- 
tatives of  monopoly  capital,  could  give  nothing  to 
the  middle  class.  The  mass  base  was  dissipated  by 
the  disillusionment  of  the  middle  class,  and  the 
rulers  maintained  their  positions  with  only  the 
support  of  the  police  and  the  military  force.  This 
was  characterized  by  Trotsky  as  a  Bonapartist 
military-police  dictatorship. 

While  the  economic  situation  remains  rela- 
tively quiet  this  type  of  rule  gives  the  illusion  of 
great  strength.  But  it  is  really  a  regime  of  ex- 
tremely unstable  equilibrium,  as  was  shown  in 
both  Italy  and  Germany  where  under  conditions 
created  by  World  War  II  these  military  dictator- 
ships fell  easily.  In  Italy,  under  the  pressure  of  the 
first  revolutionary  waves  of  the  revival  of  the 
workers  movement.  In  Germany,  by  the  military 
pressure  of  the  Allied  armies. 

So,  also,  the  South  today  is  revealed  as  a 
semi-military  police  dictatorship,  its  mass  base 
undermined  and  dissipated  by  the  very  logic  of 
capitalist  development.  It  too  will  fall  under  the 
first  serious  blows  as  the  southern  workers  mass 
movements  will  arise  in  the  period  ahead. 

Other  far-reaching  effects  of  the  indus- 
trialization of  the  South  undermine  the  rule  of 
capitalism.  The  proletarianization  of  poor  agrar- 
ian and  middle  class  whites  by  modern  industry 
has  created  a  clear  identity  of  interest  between 
white  and  black  as  exploited  industrial  workers. 


Capitalism  has  thus  itself  created  in  the  South  all 
of  the  conditions  for  the  emergence  of  the  class 
struggle  and  the  revival  of  the  age-long  struggle 
of  the  Negroes  for  equality,  spelling  the  doom  of 
capitalism. 

3.   The  Struggle  for  Equality 

So  far  we  have  been  concerned  mainly  with 
the  objective  nature  and  history  of  the  race 
question.  It  is  now  time  to  consider  the  direction 
of  the  actual  struggle  of  the  Negro  people  against 
discrimination. 

The  Negro  struggle  has  been  historically  con- 
ditioned by  two  main  factors.  First,  the  basic 
social  and  economic  need  of  the  U.S.  ruling  class 
to  prevent  the  development  of  any  cultural  or 
economic  base  upon  which  independent  nations 
might  arise.  Second,  by  the  very  nature  of  seg- 
regation. This  is  the  means  by  which  the  assimi- 
lation of  Negroes  is  prevented  and  their  special 
racial  exploitation  maintained. 

The  interaction  of  these  two  factors  has 
created  the  two  poles  of  the  Negro  struggle: 
separatism  and  assimilation. 

The  European  emigrant  groups  were  required 
only  to  assimilate  and  to  become  "Americanized." 
But  the  Negroes,  the  most  completely  "Ameri- 
canized" section  of  the  population,  have  been 
prevented  from  exercising  American  citizenship, 
and  thus  are  deprived  of  the  right  of  assimilation. 
On  the  other  hand  the  economic  development  of 
the  country  has  prevented  such  a  segregated 
group  from  developing  any  economic  and  social 
base  by  which  they  could  take  advantage  of  their 
segregation  to  develop  the  foundation  for  an 
independent  national  economy. 

At  every  point,  the  ruling  class  has  calculated 
to  maintain  this  factor  of  racial  separation.  And 
conversely,  the  basic  advances  which  the  Negroes 
have  made  through  the  entire  historical  period 
from  the  founding  of  abolitionism  in  the  1830's 
until  the  present  day  have  been  achieved  in  the 
struggle  against  separation,  and  essentially  for 
the  right  of  assimilation  into  American  society. 

I  want  to  trace  briefly  the  historical  devel- 
opment of  the  relation  between  separatism  and 
assimilationism  as  the  main  two  poles  of  the 
Negro  struggle. 

During  the  first  decades  of  the  last  century 
there  was  one  and  only  one  organized  movement 
in  the  United  States  concerning  itself  with  the 
Negro  question:  the  American  Colonization  So- 
ciety. This  was  an  organization  founded  by  slave- 
owners and  basically  expressing  their  interests. 


42 


Though  this  society  was  international  its 
most  important  base  was  among  the  middle  class 
humanitarians  of  the  northern  cities  of  the  United 
States.  The  whole  first  half  of  the  19th  century 
was  an  era  of  insecurity  and  unrest  for  the  urban 
middle  classes.  The  long  depressions  brought 
about  by  the  fundamental  cycles  of  capitalist 
production,  partially  by  the  constant  reduction  in 
tariffs  by  the  slave  power,  kept  the  middle  classes 
in  a  state  of  constant  crisis  which  resulted  in  a 
hysteria  for  reform. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  middle  class,  how- 
ever, that  because  they  have  no  independent  class 
position  in  society  they  cannot  find  the  solution 
to  their  problems  in  terms  of  their  own  class 
interests.  Today  middle  class  hysteria  born  of 
economic  insecurity  finds  its  expression  all  the 
way  from  religious  revival  to  support  of  fascist- 
type  movements. 

During  the  first  half  of  the  19th  century,  the 
middle  class  attached  itself  to  a  number  of 
panaceas,  which  it  felt  might  solve  its  problems. 
They  became  preoccupied  with  temperance,  with 
money  and  land  reform,  with  Utopian  socialist 
movements;  some  attached  themselves  to  nature, 
others  to  the  uplift  of  women  and  factory 
workers;  but  the  most  powerful  magnet  of 
attraction  for  this  middle  class  was  the  Negro 
question. 

They  felt,  and  quite  correctly,  that  somehow 
the  Negro  question  concerned  their  own  insecu- 
rity. The  truth  was  that  the  source  of  the  terrible 
crisis  of  the  middle  class  of  this  period  was  in  the 
fact  that  the  slave  power,  representing  class  in- 
terests hostile  to  capitalist  development,  was  the 
dominant  force  in  the  nation,  and  inasmuch  as 
the  future  of  the  middle  class  was  tied  up  with 
the  future  of  capitalism  in  general,  the  slave- 
owners were  their  enemies  and  the  slaves  were 
the  only  group  in  society  with  the  power  and 
position  to  overthrow  this  hostile  class. 

But  the  slaveowners  were  able  at  first  to 
control  and  channelize  this  middle  class  discon- 
tent through  the  agency  of  the  American  Colo- 
nization Society.  The  program  of  this  organiza- 
tion was  to  solve  the  Negro  question  by  the 
colonization  of  all  free  Negroes  in  Africa. 

Among  the  achievements  of  this  society  was 
the  founding  of  the  colony  of  Liberia.  Some 
25,000  Negroes  at  one  time  or  another  were 
deported  there,  mostly  against  their  will,  and 
formed  a  ruling  and  privileged  group  in  the 
colony.  For  more  than  a  century  they  have  ruled 
and  exploited  the  African  native  population  there 


in  the  interest  of  American  industrial  enterprises. 
This  colony,  nominally  an  independent  republic, 
is  today  owned  for  all  practical  purposes  by  the 
Firestone  Tire  and  Rubber  Company. 

Neither  the  slaves  nor  the  free  Negroes 
would  have  anything  to  do  with  this  plan  for 
deporting  them  to  Africa.  They  contended  that 
they  were  Americans  as  much  as  any  and  more  so 
than  most  and  demanded  the  rights  accorded  to 
all  other  Americans.  To  the  slaveowners'  demand 
for  the  deportation  of  Negroes,  the  slaves 
counterposed  the  demand  for  immediate  and 
unconditional  emancipation.  This  was  the  genesis 
of  the  abolitionist  movement  and  the  program 
which  the  slaves  and  free  Negroes  fought  on 
throughout  the  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction. 

This  early  conflict  between  colonization  and 
abolition  expresses  the  conflict  between  separa- 
tism and  assimilation  which  have  been  the  basic 
problems  of  the  Negro  struggle  ever  since  1830. 
This  conflict  appears  today  between  those  who 
struggle  for  immediate  and  unconditional  eco- 
nomic, political  and  social  equality,  and  those 
who  will  make  some  concession  or  adaptation  to 
the  demand  of  the  ruling  class  for  segregation. 

In  most  instances  the  Negroes  have  found 
their  most  bitter  foes  ranged  on  the  side  of 
separatism,  and  have  achieved  their  advances 
along  the  opposite  line.  In  this  historical  context 
the  Garvey  movement  appears  in  its  true  light  as 
the  abortive  result  of  the  decades  of  horrible 
reaction  and  the  complete  isolation  of  the  Negro 
people  which  followed  the  Reconstruction.  Sep- 
aratism in  the  Negro  movement  is  an  adaptation 
to  the  segregation  imposed  by  the  ruling  class.  In 
the  case  of  the  Garvey  movement  it  was  the  only 
channel  through  which  the  mass  discontent  of  the 
Negro  people  could  express  itself. 

The  Stalinists  thus  find  in  their  advocacy  of 
separatism  an  embarrassing  contradiction  to  their 
support  of  struggles  against  segregation. 

The  ruling  class  now  proposes  the  spurious 
solution  of  "separate  but  equal."  But  the  Negroes 
are  quite  aware  that  separation  is  the  condition 
of  discrimination,  not  of  equality.  They  counter- 
pose  the  demand  for  unconditional  and  immedi- 
ate equality  to  all  the  doctrines  of  separation. 

4.  Race  Consciousness 

Now  we  come  to  the  question  of  race  con- 
sciousness. Many  people  wrongly  assume  that 
race  consciousness  among  Negroes  is  a  sign  of 
their  desire  to  create  a  society  and  state  of  their 
own,  or,  as  the  Communist  Party  puts  it:  for 


43 


National  Self-Determination. 

Race  relations  are  the  artificial  product  of 
capitalist  exploitation  in  the  United  States.  They 
do  not  flow  from  the  basic  economic  relations  of 
production  but  are  superimposed  upon  the  class 
structure.  In  the  disfiguration  of  American  society 
by  the  scar  of  race  antagonism  we  see  that  it 
fortifies  and  tends  to  stabilize  the  structure  of 
American  capitalism  by  dividing  the  population 
into  hostile  racial  groups,  who  find  it  difficult  to 
get  together  in  defense  of  their  common  interests 
against  the  master  class. 

Race  consciousness  is  one  of  the  products  of 
this  arbitrary  division  of  society  into  races.  It 
bears  some  similarity  to  other  forms  of  social 
consciousness,  and  yet  it  is  different. 

Class  consciousness,  for  instance,  has  a 
thoroughly  material  foundation  whether  it  be  of 
the  capitalist  class  or  among  the  workers.  For 
either  workers  or  capitalists,  class  consciousness 
is  the  recognition  that  because  of  economic 
position  in  society  a  person  has  certain  basic 
problems  which  are  common  to  all  those  of  the 
same  economic  group. 

In  this  case,  the  mode  of  production  divides 
society  into  economic  classes,  and  class  con- 
sciousness is  the  inevitable  product  of  this 
division.  Class  consciousness  corresponds  to  the 
real  relations  of  production. 

But  there  is  nothing  in  the  mode  of  produc- 
tion itself  which  divides  society  into  races.  This 
division  is  the  result  of  the  disfiguration  of  the 
capitalist  mode  of  production  in  the  South  by  the 
influences  of  chattel  slavery.  It  is  maintained  only 
by  force  and  violence  and  is  accompanied  by  prej- 
udice, special  exploitation,  extreme  ignorance  and 
cultural  barrenness.  Race  consciousness  reflects 
in  one  way  or  another  the  distortion  of  the  mode 
of  production  and  the  violence  and  prejudice  of 
the  race  system. 

In  the  southern  system  and  the  race  relations 
which  derive  from  it,  all  Negroes  are  the  victims 
of  discrimination.  But  except  for  a  minority  of 
capitalists  and  privileged  middle  class  people,  the 
white  population  as  such  does  not  derive  benefit 
from  it.  On  the  contrary,  the  white  worker  and 
farmer  are  as  much  the  objects  of  class  exploita- 
tion as  are  the  Negroes.  A  majority  of  the  workers 
and  farmers  in  the  South  are  white.  But  their 
standard  of  living  and  general  social  condition  is 
directly  determined  by  that  of  the  Negroes. 

Therefore,  while  the  dark  race  is  the  direct 
victim  of  discrimination,  the  group  which  gains 
from  it  is  not  the  lighter  skinned  race  but  a  class: 


the  ruling  capitalist  class  of  the  United  States.  To 
be  sure,  this  class  is  lily  white,  but  it  is  not  their 
color  which  distinguishes  them  from  the  rest  of 
society,  rather  their  great  wealth,  and  the  control 
which  they  exert  over  all  finance  and  industry.  It 
is  not  the  race  consciousness  of  capitalists  which 
comes  to  the  fore  in  their  relation  with  Negroes, 
but  their  class  consciousness:  they  are  able  to 
take  advantage  of  the  racial  structure  of  American 
society  to  extract  super-profits  from  Negroes 
through  capitalist  production. 

It  is  principally  among  the  white  workers  and 
farmers  of  the  South  that  white  race  conscious- 
ness asserts  itself.  But  I  believe  I  have  shown  that 
the  great  majority  of  these  white  workers  and 
farmers  are  victimized  by  the  racial  division  in 
society  nearly  as  much  as  are  the  Negroes.  Race 
prejudice,  which  is  the  form  of  white  race  con- 
sciousness, is  one  of  the  means  by  which  the 
extreme  exploitation  of  white  workers  themselves 
is  maintained.  It  is  in  direct  opposition  to  their 
material  interests.  We  are  therefore  justified  in 
maintaining  that  there  is  no  material  foundation 
for  race  consciousness  among  the  white  working 
class:  it  is  just  a  matter  of  prejudice,  which  goes 
against  their  material  interests. 

But  it  is  different  with  Negroes.  The  racial 
structure  of  the  United  States  produces  a  race 
consciousness  among  Negroes  which  corresponds 
directly  to  the  special  exploitation  and  dis- 
crimination against  them.  It  does  not  derive  from 
their  African  cultural  heritage  or  from  an  inde- 
pendent cultural  development  in  this  hemisphere, 
but  simply  from  their  position  in  American  society 
as  the  immediate  and  principal  victims  of  the 
American  system  of  race  relations. 

Nor  is  race  consciousness  in  the  United  States 
the  same  as  race  consciousness  in  Africa,  or 
among  the  Chinese.  In  these  cases  race  exploita- 
tion is  the  by-product  of  colonial  oppression  and 
is  controlled  by  the  national  aspirations  of  these 
colonial  peoples,  though  these  may  take  the  form 
of  racial  aspirations.  It  is  related  that  the  slaves 
of  San  Domingo,  in  their  secret  religious  rites, 
chanted  this  song:  "We  swear  to  destroy  the 
whites  and  all  that  they  possess;  let  us  die  rather 
than  fail  to  keep  this  vow."  This  is  the  voice  of 
the  slave  aspiring  to  emancipation— a  class  strug- 
gle which  took  the  form  of  a  race  war.  Finally,  in 
San  Domingo  the  whole  revolution  for  the  inde- 
pendence of  Haiti  took  the  form  of  a  racial 
conflict. 

Race  consciousness  among  Negroes  in  the 
United  States  is  primarily  their  consciousness  of 


44 


the  desire  for  equality,  and  the  universal  ex- 
pression of  it  is  apparent  in  the  militant  struggle 
to  achieve  this  equality.  This  is  at  the  root  of 
every  important  movement  either  of  the  masses 
or  of  the  Negro  intelligentsia  which  has  arisen 
during  the  past  twenty-five  years.  It  is  different 
from  the  manifestations  of  race  consciousness  in 
the  colonial  world,  as  for  instance  the  anti-white 
struggle  in  Kenya  unfolding  before  us. 

The  demand  for  immediate  equality  has  been 
the  cornerstone  of  the  NAACP,  was  the  premise 
of  the  March  on  Washington  Movement,  of  the 
movement  against  discrimination  in  industry,  on 
the  job  and  in  the  labor  unions.  Above  all,  it  is 
the  basis  of  the  Negroes'  recognition  and  support 
of  the  CIO. 

Thus  in  contrast  to  the  Africans,  where  race 
consciousness  inevitably  expresses  nationalism, 
the  primary  expression  of  race  consciousness  by 
Negroes  in  the  U.S.  is  the  demand  for  the  right  of 
assimilation  into  American  society. 

Race  consciousness  may  take  the  form  of  race 
pride.  In  the  white  population  this  is  a  vicious 
tool  of  reaction,  for  race  pride  among  whites  is 
primarily  the  prejudice  and  chauvinism  of  white 
supremacy.  But  among  Negroes,  race  pride  may 
and  usually  does  take  an  extremely  progressive 
course.  For  race  pride  is  the  Negroes'  conscious- 
ness of  equality,  and  expresses  itself  in  struggle 
against  the  capitalist  system  of  inequality,  and 
may  express  itself  in  the  demand  for  the  right  to 
struggle  jointly  with  white  workers  against  the 
bosses,  thus  giving  unionism  an  additional  racial 
point  of  support. 

Or  this  race  consciousness  may  take  the  form 
of  a  sympathy  with  the  colonial  peoples  who  are 
also  the  victims  of  white  supremacy,  though  in  a 
different  form.  This  instinctive  racial  sympathy 
with  the  darker  peoples  of  the  colonial  world  by 
which  American  Negroes  strike  back  against  their 
own  racial  oppression  is  in  reality  a  great 
demonstration  of  internationalism,  and  a  forerun- 
ner of  the  mutual  sympathy  and  understanding 
which  will  characterize  the  relations  of  different 
peoples  after  capitalism  has  been  destroyed.  This 
internationalism  is  a  great  thorn  in  the  side  of 
imperialism. 

Again,  race  consciousness  may  take  the  form 
of  the  vindication  of  the  history  of  the  darker 
peoples.  Under  the  stimulus  of  Negro  historians, 
African  society,  for  so  long  expurgated  from  the 
official  history  of  the  world,  is  revealed  as  an 
important  source  of  all  modern  civilization.  All 
society  advances  scientifically  and  culturally  by 


these  discoveries  and  studies. 

However,  race  pride  among  Negroes  does  not 
at  all  mean  that  they  want  either  to  return  to 
Africa  or  to  found  an  independent  nation  here  in 
the  U.S.  It  is  rather  another  means  by  which 
Negroes  justify  their  demand  for  full  equality  in 
the  United  States. 

5.  The  Question  of  Self-Determination 

There  are  expressions  of  race  consciousness 
other  than  in  the  various  phases  of  the  struggle 
for  equality.  There  is  an  expression  of  Negro  race 
consciousness  which  has  a  purely  capitalist  foun- 
dation, in  a  small  section  of  Negro  businessmen 
who  hold  economic  advantage  by  maintaining  a 
racial  monopoly  of  certain  commercial  enter- 
prises. It  is  to  the  advantage  of  this  small  group 
to  maintain  the  basic  features  of  segregation. 

Booker  T.  Washington  expressed  the  needs 
of  this  social  group  in  his  doctrine  of  acceptance 
of  the  Jim  Crow  system.  However,  for  the  mass 
of  Negroes  this  doctrine  has  a  different  signifi- 
cance. It  provides  a  means  by  which  individuals 
or  groups  may  express  a  willingness  to  cease  the 
struggle  for  equality  and  accommodate  them- 
selves to  the  requirements  of  the  white  ruling 
class. 

Booker  T.  Washington  appeared  on  the  scene 
at  the  termination  of  the  Reconstruction,  when 
the  Negroes,  having  engaged  in  revolutionary 
struggle  for  thirty  years,  had  met  final  defeat  at 
the  hands  of  the  Klan.  His  exhortation  to  the 
Negroes  to  humbly  submit  was  inspired  by  the 
master  class.  The  Negroes  accepted  it,  not  be- 
cause it  expressed  in  any  way  their  immediate 
desires  or  interests,  but  because  in  defeat  and 
isolation  they  had  no  alternative. 

Out  of  this  isolation  and  defeat  there  finally 
emerged,  after  thirty  years,  a  militant  movement 
of  struggle  against  suppression:  the  Universal 
Negro  Improvement  Association,  led  by  Washing- 
ton's disciple,  Marcus  Garvey. 

Garvey's  was  the  only  major  movement  in  the 
whole  history  of  the  Negro  struggle  since  the 
Civil  War  which  led  a  militant  struggle  while 
accepting  segregation.  This  organization  disap- 
peared as  rapidly  as  it  arose.  It  disappeared 
because  of  the  sharp  contradiction  between  a 
militant  struggle  and  the  acceptance  of  segre- 
gation. Garvey's  program  of  "Back  to  Africa,"  for 
the  promotion  of  Negro  commercial  enterprise, 
his  acceptance  of  the  Washington  creed,  were 
inadequate  for  the  forces  which  his  movement 
unleashed. 


45 


In  this  respect  the  Garvey  movement  was  a 
transition  from  the  abject  acceptance  of  segre- 
gation to  the  modern  struggle  for  equality  which 
was  made  possible  by  the  emergence  of  the  CIO. 
As  a  transitional  movement  it  was  transitory  in  its 
existence.  The  CIO,  expressing  the  interests  of  the 
most  exploited  industrial  workers,  inevitably 
expressed  the  fundamental  truth  of  the  race 
question,  that  the  interests  of  the  working  class 
and  of  the  Negro  people  are  identical,  not 
antagonistic. 

The  fundamental  content  of  the  demand  for 
full  equality  is  the  right  of  assimilation  into 
American  society.  The  idea  that  this  primary 
expression  of  race  consciousness  will  probably 
express  itself  in  the  form  of  nationalism  as  the 
struggle  unfolds  is  false.  It  is  based  upon  the 
mechanical  identification  of  the  Negro  question 
in  the  United  States  with  the  national  question  in 
Europe  and  the  colonial  world. 

The  Communist  Party  has  been  the  agent  of 
more  confusion  on  this  question  than  any  other 
group  in  the  country  outside  the  outright  par- 
tisans of  the  southern  system. 

After  belaboring  the  Negroes  unsuccessfully 
for  eighteen  years  with  the  proposal  that  they 
organize  an  independent  nation  in  the  cotton 
belt,  the  Stalinists  came  to  the  conclusion  in  1946 
that  the  Negroes  weren't  smart  enough  to  see 
how  wonderful  this  kind  of  segregation  would  be. 
So,  say  the  Stalinists,  when  the  Negroes  get 
smartened  up  they  will  realize  that  they  are  really 
an  independent  nation  and  demand  self- 
determination  and  the  Communist  Party  will  be 
vindicated. 

This  is  a  complete  fantasy.  This  nation  which 
the  Stalinists  have  dreamed  up  for  the  Negroes 
reminds  me  very  much  of  the  white  man's  heaven: 
a  story  taken  from  the  folklore  of  the  slaves 
which  features  Jack,  the  immortal  hero  of  this 
mythology. 

The  story  says  that  one  morning  the  master 
related  to  Jack  that  he  had  dreamed  about  the 
Negro's  heaven.  It  was  a  miserable  place,  dirty, 
sloppy,  uncared  for  and  generally  run  down.  Jack 
made  little  comment  about  this  dream,  but  the 
next  morning  informed  the  master  that  he  too 
had  had  a  dream.  He  dreamed  of  the  white  man's 
heaven.  It  was  a  marvelous  place  to  behold. 
Green  grass,  great  buildings,  marble  statues, 
fountains  and  pools  and  gardens.  Everything 
spotless.  The  only  peculiar  thing  was  that  there 
was  nobody  there. 

That  is  the  condition  of  the  Stalinists'  dream 


of  a  Negro  nation. 

It  is  equipped  with  boundary  lines,  an  inde- 
pendent culture,  a  state  power  and  all  the 
attributes  of  nationalism.  But  there  just  isn't 
anybody  there.  The  Negroes  will  have  nothing  to 
do  with  it. 

In  the  comparison  of  the  Negro  movement 
with  the  nationalist  movements  of  Europe,  their 
differences  are  clearly  revealed.  In  every  im- 
portant case  of  national  oppression  in  Europe  in 
modern  times,  assimilationism  on  the  part  of 
sections  of  the  oppressed  nation,  usually  its  upper 
classes,  was  the  sign  of  accommodation  to  op- 
pression. Conversely,  nationalism  and  the  demand 
for  self-determination  was  the  expression  of  the 
struggle  against  oppression. 

With  the  Negro  movement  it  is  the  precise 
opposite.  Historically,  since  the  foundation  of 
abolitionism,  every  militant  struggle  against 
oppression,  with  the  single  exception  of  the 
Garvey  movement,  has  demanded  the  right  of  as- 
similation. The  acceptance  of  separatism  has  been 
characteristic  of  accommodation  to  oppression 
and  renunciation  of  struggle.  The  adoption  of  the 
separatist  doctrine  is  the  means  by  which  Negro 
leaders  seek  peace  with  the  enemy. 

The  Negro  struggle  arises  from  the  position 
of  Negroes  in  America,  not  from  that  of  the  Poles 
in  Czarist  Russia.  Polish  nationalism  was  the 
means  by  which  the  workers  and  peasants  of  Po- 
land had  to  begin  the  solution  to  their  problems. 
But  the  various  theories  of  Negro  nationalism  and 
the  idea  of  self-determination  for  Negroes  have 
the  effect  of  justifying  the  system  of  racial 
segregation,  without  which  discrimination  could 
not  exist. 

The  Negro  question  is  revealed  as  historically 
unique.  This  flows  from  the  unique  "purity"  of 
the  race  question  in  the  United  States.  Militant 
assimilationism  under  the  slogan  of  Full  Equality 
is  the  driving  force  of  a  movement  which  can  be 
fulfilled  only  in  the  struggle  against  capitalism 
and  for  socialism. 

There  are  hypothetical  historical  circum- 
stances under  which,  however,  the  Negro  move- 
ment might  become  transformed  into  a  national 
struggle,  or  a  struggle  for  racial  independence 
along  national  lines.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the 
separatism  of  both  Washington  and  Garvey  had 
an  embryonic  nationalism  which,  if  the  isolation 
of  the  Negroes  from  the  working  class  as  a  whole 
had  been  maintained  in  the  form  in  which  it 
existed  in  the  1920's,  might  have  developed  much 
further. 


46 


Leon  Trotsky  enumerated  two  such  historical 
possibilities.  First:  "Under  the  condition  that 
Japan  invades  the  United  States  and  the  Negroes 
are  called  upon  to  fight— they  may  come  to  feel 
themselves  threatened  first  from  one  side  and 
then  from  the  other,  and  finally  awakened,  may 
say,  'We  have  nothing  to  do  with  either  of  you. 
We  will  have  our  own  state'." 

Trotsky  said  this  in  the  period  immediately 
preceding  World  War  II.  It  revealed  his  concern 
over  the  Negro  question  in  the  United  States,  and 
his  insistence  upon  considering  all  variants  of  the 
historical  process.  But  this  is  now  an  historical 
impossibility. 

Secondly,  he  said,  "There  is  another  alter- 
native to  the  successful  revolutionary  one.  It  is 
possible  that  fascism  will  come  to  power  with  its 
racial  delirium  and  oppression  and  the  reaction 
of  the  Negro  will  be  toward  racial  independence .... 
A  'privileged'  condition  will  be  created  for  the 
American  white  workers  on  the  backs  of  the 
Negroes." 

But  Trotsky  did  not  grant  the  defeat  of  the 
American  workers  by  fascism,  and  neither  do  we. 
On  the  contrary,  the  American  working  class  in 
alliance  with  the  Negroes  has  the  power  to 
overthrow  the  rule  of  Wall  Street  and  set  up  a 
workers  government  which  will  completely  fulfill 
the  needs  of  the  Negro  people  for  full  equality. 

As  an  oppressed  racial  minority  having  no 
homeland  other  than  the  United  States,  the 
Negroes  find  driving  force  in  their  struggle  for 
emancipation  in  the  demand  for  full  equality:  the 
right  to  complete  integration  and  assimilation 
into  American  life. 

Revolutionary  socialists  stand  squarely  upon 
this  program:  for  immediate  and  unconditional 
economic,  political  and  social  equality.  An  im- 
portant part  of  this  stand  is  to  reject  and  con- 
demn every  proposal  for  the  solution  of  the  Negro 
question  through  racial  separation,  whether  it  be 
the  vicious  segregationism  of  the  bosses'  doctrine 
of  "separate  but  equal"  or  the  more  subtle  pro- 
gram of  the  Communist  Party  for  "self-determi- 
nation" for  the  Negro  people.  Both  of  these  can 
only  buttress  the  basic  social  system  of  Jim  Crow 
whose  main  pillar  of  support  is  segregation. 

We  declare,  however,  with  Trotsky  that  in  the 
unlikely  event  that  history  should  take  a  different 
course  than  the  victory  of  the  revolution  in  this 
epoch,  and  in  consequence,  the  Negro  movement 
might  be  pushed  back  into  isolation  again, 
bringing  forth  the  movement  for  emancipation 
along  different  lines,  we  will  help  the  Negro 


people  to  achieve  this  emancipation  by  whatever 
road  they  choose  without  giving  up  our  own 
basic  program  for  immediate  full  equality. 

6.   The  Question  of  Prejudice 

Now  we  must  go  over  to  the  question  of  the 
nature  of  race  prejudice  and  its  role  in  the 
American  system  of  race  relations.  The  American 
philosopher  and  pragmatist  John  Dewey  has 
stated  that  "anything  that  obscures  the  funda- 
mentally moral  nature  of  the  social  problem  is 
harmful...."  Gunnar  Myrdal,  who  edited  an 
enormous  book  on  the  Negro  question  for  the 
Carnegie  Foundation,  is  a  devout  follower  of 
John  Dewey.  In  this  book  An  American  Dilemma 
he  uses  this  idea  as  his  guiding  principle:  that 
social  problems  are  fundamentally  moral  in 
nature. 

We  are  familiar  with  the  application  of  this 
theory  to  other  fields.  In  the  case  of  the  exploit- 
ative evils  of  capitalism,  it  is  claimed  that  the 
exploitation  of  wage  labor  by  capital  results  from 
the  greed  of  the  capitalist.  The  inference  is  clear, 
therefore,  that  as  long  as  people  are  greedy,  and 
they  have  always  been  so,  exploitation  of  man  by 
man  will  continue. 

Karl  Marx  proved  conclusively,  however,  that 
it  was  not  greed  but  property  relations  which 
make  it  possible  for  exploitation  to  exist. 

When  applied  to  the  Negro  question,  the 
theory  of  morality  means  that  the  root  of  the 
problem  of  discrimination  and  white  supremacy 
is  prejudice.  This  is  the  reigning  theory  of 
American  liberalism  and  is  the  means  by  which 
the  capitalists  throw  the  responsibility  for  the  Jim 
Crow  system  upon  the  population  as  a  whole.  If 
people  weren't  prejudiced  there  would  be  no 
Negro  problem.  This  contention  is  fundamentally 
false. 

The  position  in  which  the  Negro  people  are 
placed  in  U.S.  society  is  the  direct  result  of  the 
system  of  color  slavery.  Color  prejudice  under 
slavery  resulted  from  the  degraded  position  of  the 
Negro.  The  Negro  was  virtually  the  entire 
southern  working  force  and  color  prejudice 
reflected  the  degraded  position  of  labor  as  a 
whole  in  society.  The  greatest  humiliation  that 
white  men  in  the  old  South  could  undergo  was 
being  forced  to  do  productive  labor. 

In  this  society  before  the  Civil  War,  dis- 
crimination thus  had  the  advantage  of  being 
appended  to  a  peculiar  and  special  mode  of 
production  in  which  servile  labor  appears  natural, 
and  is  in  fact  the  basic  labor  of  society. 


47 


The  Garrisonians  claimed  that  slavery  was 
only  a  moral  question.  And  while  their  militant 
actions  were  in  violation  of  this  concept,  they 
maintained  that  all  that  was  necessary  was  to 
show  that  it  was  morally  wrong  and  slavery 
would  cease  to  exist.  But  the  Garrisonians  were 
wrong.  Because  slavery  was  a  matter  of  a  social 
system,  a  mode  of  production,  tremendous  wealth 
amassed  by  its  ruling  class,  and  state  power  to 
protect  it.  They  were  also  proven  wrong  by 
history,  where  war  and  revolution,  not  moral 
suasion,  were  necessary  to  end  slavery. 

Now,  we  know  from  a  study  of  the  history  of 
capitalist  development  throughout  the  world  that 
one  of  the  important  aspects  of  the  emergence  of 
capitalism  is  the  creation  of  the  free  labor  market, 
where  the  laborer  has  nothing  but  his  labor 
power  to  sell,  and  may  go  and  come  through  the 
country  in  search  of  a  buyer  for  this  commodity. 

However,  the  triumph  of  capitalism  in  the 
South  brought  not  the  free  labor  market,  but  the 
adaptation  of  the  plantation  system  of  color 
discrimination  and  compulsory  labor  to  capitalist 
property  relations.  In  this  contradiction  between 
the  tendency  of  capitalism  to  operate  with  a  free 
labor  market  and  the  reality  of  semi-slave  labor, 
all  the  weird  social  relations  and  prejudices  which 
originated  under  slavery  were  intensified  by  the 
victory  of  capitalism. 

Prejudice  is  not  the  cause  of  discrimination, 
as  the  liberals  claim,  but  is  the  product  of  the 
reciprocal  relation  between  discrimination  and 
segregation.  At  the  foundation  of  the  southern 
system  are  the  great  economic,  political  and  social 
advantages  which  capitalism  derives  from  color 
exploitation,  and  the  advantages  accruing  to  a 
small  white  middle  class.  The  principal  prop  of 
this  system  of  discrimination  is  segregation. 
Without  segregation  the  racial  division  of  Amer- 
ican society  is  meaningless  and  withers  away. 
Segregation  is  maintained  basically  not  by  prej- 
udice but  by  force  and  violence  and  the  legal 
structure  of  the  South. 

Prejudice  is  the  product  of  this  complex  social 
relation.  But  although  it  is  directed  immediately 
against  the  Negro,  its  object  is  the  working  class 
as  a  whole.  Through  discrimination  and  segrega- 
tion, Negro  labor  is  degraded  and  its  wage  falls 
to  the  bare  subsistence  level.  But  this  sets  the 
pattern  and  controls  the  conditions  of  labor  as  a 
whole. 

Color  prejudice  thus  reflects  both  prejudice 
against  labor  as  a  whole  and  the  degradation  of 
the  southern  worker.  In  the  South  white  labor  is 


disfranchised  along  with  Negro  labor  and  the 
standard  of  living  of  the  white  sharecropper  or 
factory  hand  is  little  better  than  that  of  the 
Negro. 

Discrimination  and  prejudice  in  the  rest  of 
the  United  States  derives  directly  from  the 
southern  system,  feeds  upon  it,  and  like  racial 
discrimination  throughout  the  world  is  completely 
dependent  upon  it.  The  capitalist  class  adapts  to 
its  needs  the  fundamental  features  of  the 
southern  system.  In  every  possible  way  it 
perpetuates  the  division  of  the  working  class  by 
establishing  throughout  the  entire  nation  the 
basic  reciprocal  relations  between  discrimination, 
segregation  and  prejudice  which  are  so  successful 
in  the  South. 

Discrimination  within  the  working  class  itself 
is  due  to  the  adaptation  of  the  labor  aristocracy 
to  the  southern  system  as  a  means  of  preserving 
craft  and  bureaucratic  privileges  in  industry  and 
in  the  union  movement.  But  in  the  North  and 
West  the  basic  social  system  of  the  South  and  its 
heritage  from  the  past  are  missing.  Therefore  in 
these  regions  the  Jim  Crow  system  tends  to  break 
down  under  the  forces  generating  working  class 
solidarity. 

The  basic  identity  of  interest  of  the  industrial 
working  class  and  the  Negro  people  is  revealed 
in  the  alliance  between  the  Negroes  and  the 
white  workers  in  the  CIO.  Craft  unionism  with 
few  exceptions  was  lily  white  during  the  1920's. 
The  emergence  of  the  CIO  was  testimony  that 
unionism  in  the  mass  production  industries 
cannot  exist  upon  either  a  craft  or  racial 
foundation. 

But  since  discrimination  in  the  North  and 
West  derives  from  the  southern  system,  it  will 
never  be  eliminated  until  the  southern  system  is 
uprooted  and  destroyed.  Similarly  with  prejudice. 
Education  against  prejudice  has  its  importance  in 
the  Negro  struggle.  But  only  the  destruction  of 
the  economic  and  social  foundation  upon  which 
prejudice  is  built  will  eliminate  it.  This  will  be 
accomplished  only  by  the  socialist  revolution. 

7.    The  Negro  Struggle,  Capitalist  Politics 
and  the  Labor  Movement 

I  believe  that  I  have  already  demonstrated 
how  completely  integrated  the  Jim  Crow  system 
is  with  American  capitalist  production  and  its 
political  superstructure.  Nevertheless  even  after 
agreeing  with  many  or  even  most  or  all  of  these 
facts  there  are  still  some  who  cling  tenaciously  to 
the  false  idea  that  in  some  way  or  another  there 


48 


is  room  for  considerable  progress  towards  the 
solution  of  the  problem  of  racial  discrimination 
within  the  framework  of  the  capitalist  parties. 

The  police  state  of  the  South  is  administered 
by  the  Bourbons  through  the  Democratic  Party 
machinery  under  the  protection  of  the  national 
government.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  if  it 
was  the  Democratic  Party  which  created  the  semi- 
fascist  southern  system,  it  was  the  Republican 
Party  which  voluntarily  turned  the  South  over  to 
the  Klan. 

The  Democrats,  it  is  true,  are  the  main 
upholders  of  white  supremacy.  But  it  was  the 
Republican  Party  which,  during  its  purge  of  the 
Black  Republicans  during  the  1890's,  caused  the 
coining  of  the  epithet  "lily  white." 

The  so-called  struggle  between  the  Repub- 
licans and  Democrats  in  the  South  is  essentially 
a  struggle  between  two  capitalist  political  cliques 
for  the  allegiance  of  the  most  reactionary  section 
of  southern  political  society,  the  Dixiecrats. 
Whatever  the  ups  and  downs  of  this  struggle,  the 
basic  political  structure  will  remain  intact  until 
the  working  class,  jointly  with  the  Negro  people, 
vanquishes  and  destroys  the  Republican- 
Democratic  dictatorship. 

One  of  the  main  struggles  of  the  Negro 
movement  in  the  South  since  World  War  II  has 
been  directed  towards  achieving  the  right  to  vote. 
This  has  had  some  success.  However,  it  would  be 
a  mistake  to  assume  that  the  mere  addition  of  an 
increasingly  larger  number  of  Negroes  to  the 
voters  list  will  materially  change  social  conditions 
in  the  South.  Votes  don't  determine  or  control 
anything  of  great  importance  in  the  South. 

The  battle  for  the  vote  is  an  absolutely 
necessary  part  of  the  Negro  struggle  in  the  South. 
But  as  long  as  it  finds  expression  merely  in  the 
right  to  support  one  or  another  wing  of  the  ruling 
Bourbon  dictatorship,  its  scope  is  extremely 
limited,  and  it  will  change  nothing  essential. 

There  is  no  progressive  tendency  in  the 
reactionary  southern  dictatorship.  The  Bourbons 
enjoy  sending  their  "liberals"  to  Congress  as  a 
malicious  joke  on  the  nation.  But  at  home  they 
are  united  on  the  fundamental  questions.  To  the 
Negroes'  demand  for  equality  they  unanimously 
reply  with  the  doctrine  of  "separate  but  equal," 
for  they  well  know  that  there  is  no  equality  with 
segregation. 

The  effectiveness  of  the  struggle  for  the  right 
to  vote  in  the  South  will  remain  limited  until  it 
is  coupled  with  the  struggle  for  the  right  of  the 
southern  workers  to  establish  their  own  inde- 


pendent party  of  labor  with  no  compromise  on 
the  basic  question  of  civil  rights. 

However,  equality  is  not  enough,  either  in 
the  North  or  South.  The  Negro  has  the  right  to 
ask:  "What  is  it  to  be  equal  to  the  under- 
nourished white  sharecropper  in  South  Carolina? 
What  is  it  to  be  equal  in  the  disease-infested 
slums  of  Detroit?" 

Southern  workers  are  the  victims  not  only  of 
the  racial  division  of  society  which  intensifies 
capitalist  exploitation.  They  are  also  oppressed  by 
an  historically  outmoded  system  of  land  tenure. 
Southern  agriculture  is  still  suffering  from  the 
inability  of  the  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction  to 
break  up  the  landed  estates  of  the  slaveowners. 
Along  with  the  demand  for  full  civil  rights  must 
come  the  demand  to  destroy  the  plantation 
system,  and  an  end  to  tenancy  and  sharecropping 
through  the  nationalization  of  the  land.  The 
nationalized  land  must  be  divided  among  those 
who  work  it  and  operated  either  as  independent 
diversified  farms  or  as  state-operated  industrial 
farms  controlled  by  the  workers.  In  this  respect 
the  problems  of  plantation  labor  in  the  United 
States  are  hardly  less  severe  than  they  are  in 
India. 

In  the  North  and  West,  equality  of  Negroes 
as  wage  workers  can  never  become  a  reality 
under  capitalism.  For  capitalism  is  a  system  of 
scarcity,  and  the  Negroes,  the  last  to  be  hired  by 
modern  industry,  will  continue  to  be  the  first 
victims  of  the  periodic  spasms  of  unemployment 
which  characterize  capitalist  production. 

What  would  equality  bring  to  the  Negro 
middle  class  at  a  time  monopoly  capital  is 
squeezing  out  the  white  middle  class?  A  hundred 
years  ago  it  would  have  had  meaning.  But  today 
equality,  even  if  possible  under  capitalism,  which 
it  is  not,  would  be  only  the  equality  of  destitution 
which  is  the  future  of  the  middle  class  of  the 
United  States. 

Each  of  these  examples  demonstrates  that 
discrimination  against  Negroes  in  the  United 
States  is  so  ingrained  in  the  social  structure  that 
only  complete  destruction  of  capitalism  can  lay 
the  foundation  for  the  solution  of  the  Negro 
question. 

A  hundred  years  ago  Karl  Marx,  in  urging  the 
American  workers  to  support  the  struggle  of  the 
slaves  for  emancipation  and  to  support  the 
northern  cause  in  the  Civil  War,  proclaimed  the 
following  truth:  "Labor  cannot  emancipate  itself 
in  the  white  skin  where  in  the  black  it  is 
branded."  This  is  just  as  true  today  in  the  modern 


49 


context  of  racial  discrimination  as  it  was  during 
the  struggle  against  slavery. 

At  each  point,  the  fundamental  interests  of 
the  industrial  working  class  and  of  the  Negro 
people  are  tied  together.  At  no  point  is  this 
revealed  more  strongly  than  in  the  problems  of 
unionism. 

Working  class  solidarity  is  a  mighty  antidote 
to  race  prejudice.  Without  the  overthrow  of 
prejudice  unionism  itself  is  always  in  danger.  This 
is  demonstrated  in  the  great  struggles  against  the 
giant  corporations  of  auto,  rubber,  steel.  Here  the 
working  class  was  forced,  in  spite  of  prejudice,  to 
present  a  united  front  to  the  employers  or  meet 
sure  defeat.  This  action  was  the  beginning  of  the 
overthrow  of  race  prejudice,  just  as  it  was  the 
beginning  of  industrial  unionism. 

But  this  is  also  demonstrated  in  the  heart  of 
the  South  where  unionism  in  Birmingham, 
through  the  agency  of  the  coal  miners  and 
steelworkers,  has  thrust  an  imposing  salient  into 
the  semi-fascist  Bourbon  empire. 

The  street-car  conductors  of  Birmingham  are 
one  of  the  groups  whose  function  it  is  to  main- 
tain the  traditions  of  segregation.  In  the  turbu- 
lence of  Birmingham,  which  is  just  an  overgrown 
U.S.  steel  "company  town"  in  many  respects,  the 
street-car  conductors  are  armed,  or  at  least  they 
used  to  be.  It  was  common  to  shoot  scores  of 
Negroes  every  year  to  maintain  segregation  on 
the  cars. 

But  during  the  period  of  the  organization  of 
the  utilities,  one  day  six  Negro  powerhouse 
workers  struck  against  injustice,  and  within  two 
hours  every  single  street  car  was  idle  due  to  the 
action  of  solidarity  of  the  white  street-car  crews 
with  the  six  Negroes.  This  action  illustrates  the 
way  that  capitalist  exploitation  levels  out  the 
working  class  until  finally  the  workers  begin  to 
shed  even  their  race  prejudice  in  the  interest  of 
class  solidarity. 

If  industrial  unionism  could  not  exist  upon  a 
racial  basis,  neither  can  it  be  maintained  on  a 
regional  basis.  The  low  wages  of  the  South  are  a 
constant  pressure  upon  all  unions  throughout  the 
country.  Furthermore,  the  Bourbon  dictatorship 
is  the  most  consistent  and  steadfast  of  all  the 
sources  of  anti-labor  reaction  in  the  country. 

The  central  role  of  the  southern  Democrats 
in  all  the  anti-labor  legislation  in  Congress 
through  the  years  is  too  well  known  to  require 
comment. 

During  times  of  economic  stability  the 
pressure  of  the  southern  reaction  may  take  only 


the  form  of  undermining  and  limiting  the  labor 
movement.  But  in  times  of  social  crisis  it  can 
become  the  backbone  of  a  great  reactionary 
movement. 

The  open-shop  Jim  Crow  South  is  therefore 
lifted  as  a  Sword  of  Damocles  over  the  head  of 
the  labor  movement.  But  the  example  of  the  city 
of  Birmingham  proves  that  it  is  by  no  means 
impossible  to  organize  in  the  South. 

Nevertheless,  the  CIO  has  failed  in  all  its 
major  attempts.  This  can  only  be  explained  by  the 
limitations  of  the  program  of  the  union 
bureaucracy. 

The  organization  of  a  labor  movement  in  the 
South  among  the  basic  industrial  and  agricultural 
workers  there  must  take  its  point  of  departure 
from  a  break  with  capitalist  politics  and  capitalist 
parties.  It  must  recognize  that  a  whole  social 
system  must  be  overthrown  before  democracy  and 
unionism  will  be  possible.  A  social  system 
involving  a  privileged  middle  class  which,  though 
weakened  by  capitalist  development,  is  still  the 
dominant  social  force,  involving  an  archaic  land 
tenure  and  a  semi-fascist  police  state. 

As  adherents  of  the  Democratic  Party  and 
partners  of  American  big  business  the  union 
bureaucrats  operate  as  partisans  of  the  Bourbon 
Party  of  the  South  regardless  of  their  wishes  in 
the  matter. 

8.   Socialism  and  the  End  of  the  Race  System 

In  concluding,  I  want  to  summarize  my  thesis 
on  the  question  of  racial  discrimination  in  the 
struggle  for  equality. 

The  racial  division  of  society  was  born  with 
capitalism  and  will  die  only  with  the  death  of  this 
last  system  of  exploitation.  Before  capitalism 
there  was  no  race  concept.  There  was  no  skin 
color  exploitation,  there  was  no  race  prejudice, 
there  was  no  idea  of  superiority  and  inferiority 
based  upon  physical  characteristics. 

It  was  the  advent  of  Negro  chattel  slavery  in 
the  western  hemisphere  which  first  divided 
society  into  races.  In  a  measure  the  whole  su- 
premacy of  western  capitalism  is  founded  upon 
this  modern  chattel  slavery.  The  primary  accu- 
mulation of  capital  which  was  the  foundation  of 
the  industrial  revolution  was  accrued  largely  from 
the  slave  trade. 

The  products  of  the  slave  system  in  the  early 
colonies  formed  the  backbone  of  European 
mercantilism  and  the  raw  materials  for  industrial 
capitalism.  The  three-cornered  trade  by  pious 
New  England  merchants,  consisting  of  rum,  slaves 


50 


and  sugar  cane,  was  the  foundation  of  American 
commerce.  Thus  Negro  slavery  was  the  pivotal 
point  upon  which  the  foundations  of  the  U.S. 
national  economy  were  hinged. 

As  the  last  surviving  slave  system  in  the 
modern  world,  U.S.  Negro  slavery  in  the  first  half 
of  the  19th  century  was  a  worldwide  center  of 
reaction.  The  myth  of  racial  superiority  based 
upon  skin  color  was  adopted  by  the  western 
imperialists  as  a  means  of  stabilized  colonial  rule. 
They  have  never  failed  to  justify  their  practices  in 
the  colonies  by  reference  to  the  American  system. 
The  American  plantation  system  was  transported 
to  India  and  was  introduced  by  American  slave 
drivers.  Attempts  of  the  British  to  introduce  the 
color  concept  into  the  castes  of  India  made 
constant  reference  to  the  American  system  of 
white  superiority. 

Having  become  the  imperialist  leader  of  the 
capitalist  world,  the  U.S.  exports  race  prejudice 
as  naturally  as  it  does  death  and  destruction  to 
the  colonial  world.  Europe  was  virtually  free  of 
color  prejudice  until  the  white  American  army 
began  its  indoctrination  of  the  "American  Way." 

There  is  hardly  a  soldier,  sailor  or  seaman 
who  went  through  the  campaign  for  the  Solomon 
Islands  who  will  ever  forget  his  first  entrance  into 
the  harbor  at  Tulagi  after  it  was  established  as 
the  principal  P.T.  base  in  the  islands.  As  the  ship 
slowly  winds  its  way  through  the  inlets  and 
channels  leading  to  Tulagi,  surrounded  by  a 
beautiful  and  idyllic  jungle,  all  at  once  a  gigantic 
and  shocking  sign  looms  into  sight.  A  sign  twice 
or  even  three  times  the  size  of  an  ordinary 
roadside  billboard,  as  I  remember  it. 

A  black  background  with  enormous  white 
letters.  The  sign  screamed  the  jingoism  of  World 
War  II:  "Admiral  Halsey  says:  'Kill  Japs!  Kill  Japs! 
Kill  more  Japs!  If  you  do  your  work  well  you  will 
help  to  kill  more  of  the  little  yellow  bastards!'" 

And  in  this  way  a  little  spot  of  the  U.S.A.  was 
carved  out  of  the  jungle,  and  the  GIs  knew  they 
were  at  home;  with  the  Ku  Klux  Klan  and  the 
fiery  cross  and  the  black  and  white  symbols.  And 
this  is  only  one  of  the  many  ways  that  they  were 
never  permitted  to  forget  that  they  were  fighting 
for  the  restoration  of  white  supremacy  in  Asia, 
regardless  of  the  humanitarian  talk  from  the 
White  House. 

In  the  Korean  War  the  wholesale  destruction 
and  massacre  of  civilians  gave  the  world  a  fore- 


taste of  the  ruthless  contempt  that  the  American 
rulers  hold  for  the  darker  people  of  the  colonial 
world.  The  introduction  of  "Luke  the  Gook's  Cas- 
tle" into  official  military  and  journalistic 
geography  attests  to  the  persistence  with  which 
the  U.S.  military  spreads  "the  miasma  of  race 
prejudice,"  as  Trotsky  called  it. 

But  if  the  United  States  spreads  race 
prejudice  it  also  provokes  a  reaction  against  it. 
Throughout  Europe  the  U.S.  holds  capitalism  to- 
gether in  defiance  of  the  wishes  of  the  over- 
whelming majority  of  its  people.  The  European 
peoples  have  no  intention  of  becoming  the  battle- 
ground for  World  War  III.  Their  justified  sus- 
picion of  Yankee  imperialism  is  expressed,  in  part, 
by  their  refusal  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  white 
supremacy  and  their  demonstrative  acceptance  of 
American  Negroes  on  the  basis  of  equality. 

In  Asia,  if  the  doctrine  of  race  is  necessary  to 
maintain  a  large  military  force  intact,  it  also 
stimulates  and  fortifies  the  determination  of  all 
Asian  peoples  to  struggle  against  imperialist 
domination.  The  great  Chinese  Revolution 
emerges  in  this  respect  as  a  body  blow  to  the 
whole  system  of  white  supremacy. 

The  "Negro  Question"  in  the  United  States 
exists  because  of  the  failure  of  the  capitalist  class 
to  solve  the  most  elementary  problems  of  the 
democratic  revolution  in  the  South:  the  problems 
of  land  tenure  and  democratic  rights.  Thereby  it 
has  left  the  social  heritage  of  color  slavery  intact 
as  a  malignant  feature  of  social  life. 

But  capitalism,  even  in  the  southern  United 
States,  has  created  the  conditions  necessary  for 
its  own  destruction.  It  has  disrupted  the  old 
agrarian  pattern,  undermined  the  privileged  white 
middle  class,  thus  weakening  the  whole  fabric  of 
social  repression.  It  has  created  great  industries, 
proletarianizing  white,  urbanizing  black.  This 
process  has  centralized  the  Negro  community  in 
positions  of  great  strategic  advantage  in  large  city 
communities,  whereas  before  they  were  dispersed 
over  the  countryside.  Capitalism  has  likewise 
created  the  conditions  for  the  overthrow  of  race 
prejudice  by  working  class  solidarity. 

It  falls  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  proletarian 
revolution,  in  which  the  American  workers  will 
join  together  with  the  Negro  people  in  the 
abolition  of  capitalism,  to  uproot  the  Jim  Crow 
system.  It  is  our  task  to  build  the  party  to  lead 
that  revolution:  the  Socialist  Workers  Party. 


Contribution  to  the  Discussion  on  the  Slogan 
"Send  Federal  Troops  to  Mississippi" 


As  the  civil  rights  struggle  grew  in  the  South,  the  17  October  1955  Militant 
called  on  the  federal  government  to  send  troops  to  Mississippi.  This  demand 
precipitated  debate  within  the  Socialist  Workers  Party:  National  Committee 
member  and  Buffalo  branch  leader  Sam  Marcy  wrote  a  letter  criticizing  the 
slogan,  which  was  then  extensively  discussed  at  Political  Committee  meetings 
on  9  and  13  February  1956.  Marcy's  letter  and  the  transcript  of  the  PC 
discussion  were  printed  in  SWP  Discussion  Bulletin  Vol.  18,  No.  12  (October 
1957).  Dick  Fraser's  contribution  to  the  discussion,  written  from  Seattle, 
Washington  and  dated  10  March  1956,  was  published  in  the  subsequent 
Bulletin  (Vol.  18,  No.  13,  October  1957). 


The  first  P.C.  discussion  of  Comrade  Marcy's 
point  of  view  on  the  slogan  "Send  Federal  Troops 
to  Mississippi"  revolves  largely  around  the 
questions  of  consciousness,  transitional  vs.  im- 
mediate demands,  etc.  These  are  rather  exhaus- 
tively discussed  without  serious  consideration 
being  given  to  the  concrete  objective  effects  of 
the  use  of  Federal  Troops  in  the  South,  regardless 
of  the  ostensible  reason  for  their  being  sent  there. 
I  feel  that  this  is  a  weakness  in  the  discussion, 
and  that  this  aspect  of  the  question  has  a  priority 
in  the  discussion.  For  the  objective  result  is  the 
final  test  of  the  principled  nature  of  a  slogan. 

Concretely,  it  is  highly  probable  that  Federal 
Troops  will  be  sent  to  the  South  some  time 
during  the  coming  period  whether  we  ask  for 
them  or  not.  The  social  antagonisms  are  too  great 
to  be  indefinitely  contained  by  the  traditional 
terroristic  police  regime,  and  sooner  or  later  the 
troops  will  be  called  in.  Any  analysis  of  the 
problem  should  begin  with  this  probability. 

Troops  most  probably  will  be  sent  to  the 
South  under  quite  different  conditions  from  those 
envisioned  by  the  P.C— at  a  time  when  the  Negro 
masses  are  in  motion.  If  we  advocate  that  the 
Federal  Government  send  them  there,  we  will 
bear  political  responsibility  for  the  consummation 
of  the  demand. 

We  have  advocated  a  broad  movement  involv- 
ing a  March  on  Washington  for  the  purpose  of 
effecting  the  demand.  This  will  take  time.  The 
movement  will  be  removed  from  the  specific  cur- 
rent situation  and  will  have  the  character  of  a 


general  demand,  which  it  really  has  become  now: 
"Send  Federal  Troops  to  the  South  for  the 
purpose  of  defending  the  Negroes  against  ter- 
rorism and  establishing  democratic  rights."  This 
is  how  it  is  understood  by  the  Negro  leaders  who 
have  raised  it,  and  it  is  apparent  from  our  dis- 
cussion and  use  of  the  slogan  in  the  paper  that 
we  do  also. 

Under  either  Eisenhower  or  Stevenson,  the 
most  probable  condition  under  which  the  Federal 
Government  will  send  troops  to  the  South  will  be 
that  the  Negroes  hold  the  initiative  in  the  strug- 
gle. As  long  as  the  white  supremacists  have  the 
initiative  and  the  lid  of  repression  is  clamped  on 
tightly,  the  social  equilibrium  is  not  upset  by  a 
lynching  or  other  terrorist  actions.  When  the  Ne- 
groes take  the  initiative  it  is  a  "race  riot"  and  the 
public  security  is  threatened  and  an  excellent 
reason  is  given  to  the  government  to  intervene. 

When  the  Negroes  hold  the  initiative  it  will 
be  the  function  of  the  Federal  army  to  restore  law 
and  order  on  the  basis  of  the  existing  social  sys- 
tem, and  will  involve  severe  repressions  against 
the  Negroes.  There  hasn't  been  a  "race  riot"  in 
this  century  in  which  troops  were  used  that  they 
didn't  do  just  that— and  there  is  not  likely  to  be 
one. 

At  such  a  time  we  might  be  able  to  stop 
short,  and  reassessing  our  dangerous  position,  re- 
verse direction  and  demand  that  "No  Federal 
Troops  be  sent  to  the  South."  But  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  reverse  the  direction  of  a  mass  move- 
ment led  by  people  who  are  convinced  that  U.S. 


51 


52 


troops  could  have  a  beneficial  effect  upon  the 
South. 

I  do  not  believe  that  it  can  be  demonstrated 
that  there  is  a  qualitative  difference  in  our  use  of 
this  slogan  as  compared  with  the  Stalinists  calling 
upon  the  use  of  troops  during  the  Little  Steel 
Strike.  They  were,  after  all,  only  calling  upon  the 
government  to  enforce  the  right  to  organize  and 
bargain  collectively.  A  right  that  had  been  written 
into  the  laws  of  the  land.  In  the  comparison  of 
these  two  cases,  I  don't  think  that  there  is  a  dif- 
ference in  the  objective  actions  of  the  troops,  or 
a  difference  in  the  kind  of  illusions  which  will  be 
fostered,  nor  even  a  substantial  difference  in 
political  responsibility. 


So  far,  I  have  considered  the  problem  only  on 
the  assumption  that  troops  would  be  sent  to  the 
South  as  a  result  of  the  need  to  protect  the  status 
quo  from  a  powerful  movement  of  the  Negroes 
which  would  upset  the  social  equilibrium.  It  must, 
of  course,  be  considered  from  the  opposite  as- 
sumption as  well.  Although  unlikely,  it  is  not 
theoretically  excluded  that  given  sufficient  social 
pressure  in  the  North,  the  government  might  be 
forced  to  make  a  move  with  troops  ostensibly  to 
prevent  a  lynching,  enforce  a  court  order,  or  upon 
some  other  occasion  which  would  place  the 
troops  at  the  inception  of  the  move  in  opposition 
to  the  apparatus  of  the  southern  system.  In  such 
a  circumstance  there  would  be  an  appearance  of 
conflict  between  government  and  capital,  as  we 
saw  during  the  war  when  the  government  took 
over  industrial  plants  during  labor  disputes. 

Such  an  action  would  tend  to  create,  at  least 
momentarily,  a  relaxation  of  the  oppressive 
machinery  which  maintains  the  South  in  its 
fascist-like  police  state.  The  temporary  enlarge- 
ment of  the  area  of  struggle  thus  made  possible 
would  be  an  immediate  signal  for  a  social  explo- 
sion on  both  the  political  and  economic  front. 

In  the  present  stage  of  the  struggle  only  the 
most  elementary  democratic  demands  are  being 
pushed  by  the  southern  masses.  This  is  only  be- 
cause there  is  an  insufficiently  wide  area  of  strug- 
gle to  permit  the  consideration  of  other  demands. 
However,  it  is  the  super-exploitation  of  labor 
which  is  at  the  foundation  of  the  southern  system 
and  the  immediate  result  of  any  relaxation  of  the 
traditional  agencies  of  repression  which  might 
follow,  temporarily,  the  interposition  of  Federal 
Troops  between  these  agencies  and  the  Negro 
people  would  be  a  social  upheaval  with  a  tremen- 


dous strike  wave  as  its  probable  focal  point. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  about  what  the  role 
of  the  Federal  Troops  would  be  in  this  circum- 
stance. They  would  become  strike-breakers  and 
the  conditions  of  civil  war  which  would  accom- 
pany the  strike  wave  would  force  the  army  into 
a  firm  alliance  with  the  white  supremacists  and 
the  equilibrium  of  the  traditional  southern  system 
would  be  restored  by  the  use  of  Federal  Troops. 

The  high  probability  of  such  a  series  of 
events  is  one  reason  that  it  appears  most  unlikely 
that  the  government  would  risk  the  consequences 
of  this  kind  of  "cold"  occupation  of  the  South. 
More  probable  is  that  the  government  will  use 
the  agitation  in  favor  of  sending  troops  to  the 
South  to  do  so  under  conditions  of  "public  emer- 
gency." The  government  can  indeed  claim  that  it 
is  acting  to  protect  the  Negroes,  but  the  logic  of 
events  and  indeed  the  class  character  of  the  army 
will  impel  it  to  protect  white  supremacy  against 
the  Negroes. 


In  the  first  P.C.  discussion,  Comrades  Dobbs, 
Stein  and  Hansen  analyze  the  question  of  slogans 
in  general,  the  nature  of  transitional  demands  in 
general,  and  the  question  of  principle  involved  in 
setting  the  capitalist  army  in  motion  under  any 
conditions  whatever.  And  in  so  doing  they  cor- 
rectly take  issue  with  Comrade  Marc/s  exposition 
of  some  of  these  matters,  although  none  of  them 
touches  the  heart  of  the  question. 

In  this  respect  Marcos  document  has  a  one- 
sidedness  and  contains  a  schematism  and  formal- 
ism which  detracts  from  and  tends  to  obscure  a 
fundamentally  correct  position:  that  irrespective 
of  the  question  of  consciousness,  the  slogan  is 
wrong;  essentially  because  it  leads  to  strike- 
breaking and  other  repressions. 

For  instance,  Marcy  contends  that  because  of 
the  class  character  of  the  capitalist  state  and  its 
army,  to  put  it  into  motion  in  any  manner  at  all 
is  wrong.  Therefore,  it  is  wrong  to  call  for  it  to 
be  sent  to  the  South.  This  is  an  oversimplification 
of  the  problem  and  is  a  formalistic  schema.  A  fact 
which  others  have  observed.  The  real  reason  that 
it  would  be  wrong  to  use  this  slogan  is  to  be 
found  in  the  relationship  between  the  southern 
social  system,  American  capitalism  and  its  state. 
Marcy  makes  his  excellent  analysis  of  this  relation 
subordinate  to  his  schema  of  the  state,  and  this 
is  a  misfortune. 

Even  the  most  elementary  democratic  demand 
which  is  general  in  form  tends  to  transcend  the 


53 


limits  of  American  capitalism.  In  this  sense  while 
it  is  true  that  the  demand  for  equality  put  forward 
by  the  Negroes  is  a  democratic  demand  in  the  his- 
torical sense,  it  is  at  the  same  time  a  very  good 
example  of  Trotsky's  definition  of  a  transitional 
demand.  For  racial  equality  transcends  the  south- 
ern social  system  and  consequently  American 
capitalism. 

The  South  is  a  fascist-like  police  state  and  its 
social  relations  can  be  contained  in  no  other. 
Therefore,  any  general  demand  put  forward  in  the 
South  today  tends  to  become  transitional  in  con- 
tent for  there  will  be  no  general  alleviation  of 
conditions  there  under  capitalism.  (It  would  be 
wrong  to  confuse  a  general  demand  with  specific 
democratic  demands  which  may  not  necessarily 
by  themselves  be  anything  more  than  an  immedi- 
ate demand  which  has  at  least  a  theoretical 
possibility  of  being  realized.  I  refer  to  such 
demands  as  "justice  to  the  lynchers  of  Emmett 
Till,"  the  present  boycott  demands,  this  or  that 
individual  problem  of  integration,  specific  strike 
demands,  etc.) 

Any  one  of  the  general  grievances  of  south- 
ern workers,  moreover,  leads  immediately  to  the 
others,  so  closely  interwoven  are  the  democratic, 
economic  and  racial  problems  there.  Once  the 
movement  breaks  out  of  the  pressurized  circle  of 
the  police  state,  around  one  question,  all  others 
will  spring  forward  demanding  solution.  Under 
these  conditions,  the  presence  of  the  U.S.  Army 
in  the  South  during  such  a  period  could  lead  only 
to  disastrous  consequences  for  the  southern  work- 
ers. This  would  be  particularly  true  if  the 
presence  of  the  troops  was  initially  welcomed  by 
the  northern  supporters  of  the  movement,  for  this 
would  tend  to  disarm  the  southern  workers  and 
prevent  them  from  making  whatever  plans  they 
could  to  defend  themselves  against  this  army  in 
its  inevitable  role. 

So  actually,  in  spite  of  its  formalism,  Com- 
rade Marcy's  statement  needs  but  a  slight  altera- 
tion to  fit  the  situation  quite  well:  The  nature  of 
the  southern  social  system  and  its  relation  to 
American  capitalism  dictate  that  the  army  would 
play  only  a  reactionary  role  in  the  South.  Further- 
more, the  nature  of  the  Jim  Crow  system  and  its 
relation  to  capitalism  seem  to  me  to  justify 
Marcy's  criterion  of  transitional  demands  when 
dealing  with  the  South. 


Two  peculiarities  of  the  "troops"  slogan.  The 
slogan  reveals  the  following  contradictions: 


1.  That  it  is  motivated  around  the  question 
of  consciousness  of  Negroes  of  the  North  and 
West  for  the  solution  of  a  question  involving 
directly  only  the  Negroes  in  the  South.  I  think 
that  this  is  substantially  correct,  irrespective  of 
the  fact  that  some  middle  class  southern  leaders 
are  apparently  in  favor  of  the  demand. 

2.  That  it  arose  in  the  Negro  petty  bour- 
geoisie and  corresponds  perfectly,  not  so  much  to 
their  illusions  about  the  Federal  Government,  but 
to  their  fear  of  the  Negro  masses.  That  is,  as  op- 
posed to  the  tendency  of  the  workers  toward 
mass  actions,  the  petty  bourgeois  proposes  a 
legal-military  solution.  To  the  demands  by  the 
workers  upon  the  petty  bourgeoisie  for  leadership 
in  the  struggle,  the  middle  class  attempts  to  get 
the  masses  off  its  back  by  turning  the  whole  thing 
over  to  the  government. 

Regardless  of  the  fact  that  there  are  sections 
of  the  Negro  working  class  movement  which  do 
and  will  continue  to  support  middle  class  slogans 
and  leadership,  there  is  a  very  strong  current 
among  the  workers  both  North  and  South,  of 
hatred  and  fear  of  the  U.S.  Army.  They  have 
never  seen  or  heard  of  the  army  doing  anything 
to  the  advantage  of  the  Negroes.  In  such 
groupings,  any  illusions  which  may  exist  about 
the  Federal  Government  do  not  extend  to  its 
armed  forces. 

The  Negro  leaders  envisage  a  re-enactment 
of  the  Reconstruction  in  their  proposals  to  refuse 
to  seat  congressmen  and  to  send  troops.  While  we 
could  easily  find  a  formula  to  support  the  former 
demand,  we  have  no  business  supporting  the 
latter.  During  the  many  strikes  during  the  NRA 
[National  Recovery  Act]  period  we  never  once 
called  for  the  use  of  troops  to  enforce  Section  7a, 
although  we  certainly  supported  the  act  of  in- 
serting this  clause  into  the  law.  (And  incidentally, 
the  question  of  an  FEP  [Fair  Employment  Prac- 
tices] with  enforcement  provisions  has  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  a  general  appeal  to  the 
government  to  send  troops  to  the  South.) 

In  connection  with  the  historical  aspect  of 
the  question,  therefore,  it  would  be  wrong  to 
overestimate  the  progressive  uses  to  which  the 
U.S.  Army  was  put  during  Reconstruction.  Besides 
the  factors  which  Comrade  Marcy  has  already 
mentioned,  there  are  two  others  which  should  be 
recalled  as  modifying  the  progressive  character  of 
the  military  occupation  of  the  South  during 
Reconstruction. 

One  is  that  the  question  of  the  success  or 
failure  of  the  Reconstruction  was  in  some  cases 


54 


influenced  not  by  the  presence  of  the  U.S.  Army 
in  general,  but  specifically,  of  Negro  troops.  On 
more  than  one  occasion  the  demand  of  the  white 
supremacists  was  not  for  the  removal  of  troops 
altogether,  but  specifically  for  the  removal  of  the 
Negro  troops.  If  there  were  today  a  completely 
segregated  army,  the  Negro  community  would  be 
responsive  and  unafraid  of  the  demand  to  send 
the  Negro  regiments  to  the  South.  And  such  a 
slogan  would  tend  to  have  an  altogether  different 
social  content  than  the  one  proposed.  This  is 
obviously  not  possible,  as  it  would  cut  across  the 
main  line  of  the  struggle  for  equality — it  would 
be,  in  effect,  a  demand  for  segregated  units  in 
the  armed  forces. 

The  second  recollection  of  the  Reconstruction 
which  pertains  to  the  discussion  is  that  on  many 
occasions,  the  southern  Republicans  and  the  Ne- 
groes, both  through  the  Republican  Party  and 
independently,  requested,  pleaded  and  agitated 
for  Federal  Troops  to  protect  them  in  given  areas, 
only  to  have  the  government  turn  a  deaf  ear... 
until  the  Negroes  began  to  arm  and  protect  them- 
selves. In  these  instances  the  army,  even  in  this 
revolutionary  period,  was  brought  into  action 
only  when  the  masses  gave  evidence  of  being  pre- 
pared to  embark  upon  an  independent  solution  to 
their  problems. 

While  the  generally  progressive  character  of 
the  occupation  of  the  South  during  the  Recon- 
struction is  not  questioned,  at  the  same  time  it 
must  be  recognized  that  one  important  feature  of 
this  occupation  was  the  frustration  of  the  inde- 
pendent action  of  the  masses  in  the  solution  of 
their  problems.  Theoretically,  the  main  tangible 
reason  that  the  Reconstruction  failed  so  miserably 
in  the  end  was  precisely  because  of  the 
bureaucratic-military  control  which  the  presence 
of  the  Union  Army  enforced  over  the  revolution. 


The  problem  of  elaborating  correct  slogans 
for  the  present  situation  is  obviously  a  difficult 
one — principally  because  we  are  dealing  with 
several  different  layers  of  consciousness.  1.  The 
Negro  petty  bourgeoisie  in  the  North  and  West. 
2.  The  labor  bureaucracy.  3.  The  Negro  petty 
bourgeois  leadership  in  the  South.  4.  The  Negro 
masses.  5.  The  organized  working  class. 

The  "troops"  slogan  obviously  pertains 
largely  to  the  need  of  the  northern  Negro  move- 
ment to  do  something  in  support  of  the  actions  of 
the  southern  masses.  For  instance,  the  southern 
workers  would  tend  to  be  hostile  to  the  idea  of 


a  mass  March  on  Washington  from  the  South. 
They  would  justifiably  feel  that  this  would  be  a 
means  of  removing  the  most  militant  sections  of 
the  population  from  the  scene  of  struggle.  And 
inasmuch  as  it  is  the  March  on  Washington  which 
is  the  present  active  feature  of  the  campaign,  it 
can  have  little  significance  for  southern  workers. 

I  was  rather  surprised  that  the  paper  did  not 
develop  the  idea  (once  commented  upon)  of  a 
"March  on  Mississippi."  Such  a  slogan  contains 
a  direct  transition  to  the  Workers  Defense  Guard. 
It  corresponds  to  the  requirement  of  the  northern 
workers  to  do  something  to  express  their  solidar- 
ity with  the  struggles  in  the  South. 

It  is  perhaps  further  removed  from  the  agita- 
tional stage  than  the  "troops"  slogan  principally 
because  neither  the  Negro  petty  bourgeoisie  nor 
the  labor  bureaucracy  have  picked  it  up — nor  are 
they  likely  to.  Propagandistically,  however,  it  has 
some  rather  substantial  advantages.  It  provides 
the  framework  for  explaining  the  real  nature  of 
the  southern  social  system  and  its  relation  to 
American  capitalism;  it  counterposes  mass  action 
to  the  legal-military  type  solution  of  the  NAACP 
lawyers,  just  as  we  counterposed  mass  picketing 
to  the  use  of  troops  to  enforce  Section  7a,  a  gov- 
ernment arbitration  award,  an  NLRB  order,  etc. 
The  audacity  of  the  slogan  is  a  means  of  reveal- 
ing the  depth  of  the  social  crisis  in  the  South. 

This  slogan  or  one  like  it  would  be  necessary 
in  any  consideration  of  the  problem  of  union  or- 
ganization of  the  South.  Pending  an  overturn  of 
the  southern  system  by  the  workers  of  the  South, 
the  union  movement  cannot  hope  to  achieve  the 
degree  of  democracy  consistent  with  the  require- 
ments of  a  mass  union  movement  short  of  mas- 
sive intervention  from  the  organized  working 
class  of  the  North  and  West. 

(I  am  aware  that  the  P.C.  is  planning  a  sep- 
arate discussion  on  this  question,  and  it  is  not  my 
intention  to  attempt  to  divert  this  discussion  to 
that  one  ahead.  However,  the  intimate  connection 
between  all  the  social  problems  involved  in  the 
Negro  question  will  break  through  somewhere  in 
any  discussion,  and  sometime  we  will  have  to 
integrate  these  separate  problems.  In  this  case,  it 
seems  impossible  to  ignore  completely  the  rela- 
tion between  the  use  of  the  "troops"  slogan  and 
the  problem  of  labor  organization  in  the  South, 
not  only  for  the  specific  reason  mentioned  above, 
but  secondly,  because  the  slogan  is  incompatible 
with  union  organization  in  the  South.) 

A  Workers  Defense  Guard — a  giant  flying 
squadron  half  a  million  strong — corresponds  to 


55 


the  needs  of  the  objective  situation,  is  easily 
explained  and  justified,  will  find  response  in  the 
working  class,  and  would  be  a  means  of  disso- 
ciating ourselves  from  the  legalistic  approach  of 
the  middle  class  reformers,  and  unless  we  are 
prepared  to  do  this  we  are  going  to  postpone 
indefinitely  the  building  of  a  left  wing  movement 
in  the  Negro  community  or  specifically  in  the 
NAACP. 

"March  on  Mississippi"  coupled  with  the 
demand  on  Congress  that  it  purge  its  bodies  of 
the  Jim  Crow  congressmen  and  senators  would  at 
least  give  us  an  active  position  in  the  present 
situation  which  would  not  be  in  violation  of 
principle.  We  demand  of  Congress  that  they  do 
the  legal  end  of  it  and  leave  enforcement  to  the 
people.  The  March  on  Mississippi  would  guaran- 
tee the  legal  elections  and  the  other  democratic 
rights  contained  in  the  anti-slavery  constitutional 
amendments. 

It  is  difficult  if  not  impossible  to  develop  at 
this  time  general  action  slogans  for  the  southern 
movement  itself.  I  don't  think  that  the  southern 
Negroes  require  a  slogan  in  order  to  create 
defense  guards,  for  this  is  already  in  their  con- 


sciousness. They  have  been  preoccupied  with  the 
business  of  self-defense  ever  since  World  War  II. 
Comrade  Dobbs  has  pointed  out  their  tendency 
to  create  defense  guards  when  the  situation 
permits.  However,  they  do  not  possess  the 
necessary  legal  organizations  to  develop  defense 
guards. 

However,  the  idea  that  they  are  thrown  upon 
the  necessity  of  self-protection,  because  nobody 
else  is  going  to  protect  them,  is  very  strong 
among  the  Negro  masses  of  the  South.  This  repre- 
sents a  very  advanced  stage  of  consciousness — far 
in  advance  of  the  slogan  of  "Federal  Troops  to 
Mississippi."  It  would  be  wrong  in  my  opinion  to 
advance  this  slogan  for  this  reason  alone.  Even  if 
it  did  correspond  to  the  consciousness  of  the 
whole  mass  of  Negroes  in  the  North,  and  even  if 
it  were  not  wrong  in  principle,  it  still  would  be 
wrong  to  try  to  send  the  consciousness  of  the 
southern  militants  backward  for  the  sake  of  their 
northern  allies.  On  the  contrary,  our  slogans 
should  flow  from  and  reflect  the  most  advanced 
thinking  of  the  Negro  masses,  rather  than  the 
fearful  and  treacherous  thinking  of  the  petty 
bourgeoisie. 


Communist  Party  Internal  Discussion 

As  an  SWP  militant,  Dick  Fraser  intervened  in  the  Stalinist  movement,  seeking  to 
win  its  best  elements  to  Trotskyism.  As  part  of  that  work  in  Seattle  in  1 956  he  wrote 
the  following  document,  which  was  distributedby  SWP  supporters  in  the  Communist 
Party.  As  Fraser  commented  in  a  1  October  1 983  letter  to  Jim  Robertson,  "I  wrote 
it  for  one  of  our  fractions  in  the  CP,  who  had  the  two  members  of  the  District  Negro 
Commission. .  ..I  don't  know  if  it  will  be  of  any  value  to  the  Labor/Black  operation, 
but  it  would  probably  be  nice  for  your  archives." 

Parts  of  this  document  are  duplicative  of  "Resolution  on  the  Negro  Struggle," 
section  VI,  "The  Communist  Party"  (see  page  65).  To  avoid  repetition  we  have  ex- 
cerpted the  beginning,  followed  by  section  3  ("The  question  of  Civil  Rights  legislation 
at  the  84th  Congress"),  where  Fraser  exposes  the  CP's  West  Coast  newspaper,  the 
People's  World,  for  covering  up  the  anti-civil  rights  conspiracy  in  Congress,  and  the 
conclusion. 


The  undersigned  members  of  the  District 
Negro  Commission  in  consultation  with  rank  and 
file  members  of  the  party  have  drafted  the 
following  report  for  the  consideration  of  the 
District  Negro  Commission.  This  report  does  not 
represent  the  opinions  of  the  Negro  Commission, 
but  only  the  views  of  those  who  have  signed  this 
document  and  the  opinions  in  whole  or  part  of 
those  they  consulted  with. 

Due  to  the  fact  that  this  is  a  pre-convention 
discussion  period  we  have  decided  to  mimeograph 
and  circulate  this  report  among  the  general 
membership  as  a  contribution  to  that  discussion. 

V.J.D. 
S.O.I. 


Report  to  the 
District  Negro  Commission 

The  surprising  front  page  headline  of  the 
People's  World  of  Sept.  21,  entitled  "How  Inte- 
gration Won  in  Louisville,"  forces  us,  now  that 
the  election  campaign  is  over  and  the  pre- 
convention  discussion  period  has  begun,  to 
review  critically  the  effects  of  the  turn  of  the 
party  toward  the  Democrats  upon  our  relations 
with  the  Negro  community. 

The  support  by  the  P.  W.  of  the  Louisville  Plan 
for  "voluntary  integration"  (which  the  Negroes 
call  "voluntary  segregation")  is  only  one  of  a 
series  of  gross  violations  of  the  principles  and 
tradition  of  militant  struggle  against  Jim  Crow 
which  various  party  leaders  and  even  the  National 


Committee  have  committed  us  to. 

The  following  examples  of  this  tendency  will 
be  examined  in  detail: 

1.  The  support  of  the  Louisville  Plan. 

2.  The  question  of  the  Louisiana  "Right  to 
Work"  law. 

3.  The  question  of  Civil  Rights  legislation  at 
the  84th  Congress. 

4.  The    support    of    the    "moderate    white 
supremacists." 

5.  The  question  of  prejudice. 


3.  Civil  Rights  in  Congress.  The  history  of 
congressional  legislation  since  the  Supreme  Court 
decision  of  1954  [Brown  v.  Board  of  Education] 
reveals  that  one  of  the  important  factors  in  the 
unanimity  of  the  decision  by  a  court  which  in- 
cluded both  Republicans  and  Southern  Bourbons 
was  that  it  provided  a  formula  for  keeping  the 
issue  at  least  temporarily  off  the  floor  of 
Congress. 

This  was  highly  desirable  to  the  Republicans 
because  Eisenhower  had  categorically  promised 
during  the  1952  campaign  that  he  and  his  party 
would  fight  the  Southern  filibuster  and  get  rid  of 
Rule  22. 

It  was  completely  acceptable  to  the  Demo- 
crats because  every  time  the  Civil  Rights  issue  is 
debated  it  threatens  to  tear  their  party  apart. 

Chief  Justice  Warren's  formula  was  further 
acceptable  even  to  the  Bourbons  in  principle  be- 


56 


57 


cause  it  lacked  implementation  and  the  clear  per- 
spective was  to  turn  enforcement  over  to  the 
Southern  states  themselves. 

This  attempt  to  remove  the  Civil  Rights  ques- 
tion as  a  whole  from  the  responsibility  of  the 
legislative  branch  of  government  and  to  turn  it 
over  to  the  courts  was  fairly  successful  for  the 
first  three  years  of  the  Eisenhower  administration. 
An  occasional  futile  face-saving  gesture  on  the 
part  of  the  few  ADA  [Americans  for  Democratic 
Action]  congressmen  did  not  make  a  ripple  in  the 
sublime  peace  between  the  capitalist  political 
factions  around  this  question.  Even  the  occasional 
outbursts  of  indignation  and  resentment  in  which 
Representatives  [Adam  Clayton]  Powell  and 
[Charles]  Diggs  expressed  the  feelings  of  the 
Negro  people  failed  to  de-rail  the  congressional 
conspiracy  of  silence  on  the  Civil  Rights  question. 

The  Democrats  in  the  North  and  West  fol- 
lowed the  policy  of  concentrating  a  great  deal  of 
propaganda  and  some  action  on  the  state  level 
around  the  Civil  Rights  question.  The  object  of 
this  apparently  over  balanced  campaign  on  the 
state  level  of  politics  was  to  establish  in  the 
minds  of  labor  and  in  the  Negro  community  that 
the  Democratic  Party  stood  for  Civil  Rights  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  this  party  was  united  in  a 
conspiracy  to  keep  the  question  off  the  floor  of  the 
national  Congress,  and  to  keep  it  out  of  the  1956 
election  campaign. 

The  mounting  pressure  of  the  Negro  protest 
and  discontent  could  not  be  denied,  however,  and 
in  spite  of  all  that  a  bi-partisan  anti-Negro 
Congress  could  do,  it  spilled  over  onto  the  floor 
of  the  House  of  Representatives.  It  took  the  form 
of  rather  innocuous  proposals  by  the  administra- 
tion for  a  bi-partisan  committee  to  "investigate" 
violations  of  Civil  Rights  and  work  through  the 
president.  It  further  set  up  a  bit  of  legal 
machinery  to  enhance  the  prestige  and  authority 
of  judicial  actions  against  violations  of  Civil 
Rights.  There  was  reference  neither  to  FEP  [Fair 
Employment  Practices] ,  segregation  nor  lynching. 
Nevertheless  even  this  very  mild  Civil  Rights  bill 
placed  both  capitalist  parties  in  the  same  dilemma 
as  before  the  Supreme  Court  decision:  the  great 
majority  of  congressmen  of  both  parties  were 
committed  in  advance  to  promises  to  the  Negro 
people,  yet  the  capitalist  bosses  of  both  parties 
were  committed  to  the  maintenance  of  the  status 
quo  in  the  South  as  a  fundamental  condition  of 
their  profits  and  the  political  stability  of  capitalist 
rule. 

The  only  condition  under  which  the  Demo- 


crats could  permit  the  Civil  Rights  bill  to  reach 
the  floor  of  the  House  was  if  they  could  be  as- 
sured in  advance  that  it  would  be  killed  in  the 
Senate.  The  only  way  that  the  Republicans  could 
agree  to  kill  it  in  the  Senate  would  be  to  keep  it 
off  the  floor,  because  Eisenhower's  promise  to 
fight  the  filibuster  was  still  fresh  in  the  minds  of 
at  least  a  considerable  section  of  the  Negro 
leadership. 

Consequently,  it  was  with  great  deliberation 
and  planning  that  the  bi-partisan  opponents  of 
Civil  Rights  engineered  the  elaborate  series  of 
maneuvers  to  kill  the  Civil  Rights  bill  in  the  84th 
Congress. 

The  object  from  the  beginning  must  have 
been  to  make  the  Judiciary  Committee  be  its 
grave.  And  the  plan  could  never  have  worked  with- 
out the  concurrence  from  the  beginning  of  the  so- 
called  "liberal  bloc"  in  both  houses. 

Following  are  the  maneuvers  which  were 
necessary  to  carry  out  this  betrayal  of  the  Civil 
Rights  struggle.  Steps  in  which  all  factions  played 
their  assigned  parts: 

A.  Delay  in  the  House  until  closing  hours  of 
the  Congress. 

B.  Uncontested  referral  from  the  floor  of 
the  Senate  to  the  Judiciary  Committee. 

C.  Locking  the  bill  in  the  Judiciary 
Committee. 

Delay  in  the  House.  The  role  of  all  major 
characters  in  the  Punch  and  Judy  show  is  demon- 
strated by  the  action  of  the  House  Rules  Com- 
mittee. On  June  21  after  innumerable  delays  of 
which  this  episode  is  representative,  the  House 
Rules  Committee  was  committed  to  clear  the  bill 
for  a  hearing  on  the  floor  of  the  House.  Those 
that  played  the  role  of  "Civil  Rights  supporters" 
had  a  clear  majority  on  the  committee.  But  20 
Southern  congressmen  appeared  to  testify  against 
the  bill.  Under  cover  of  this  semi-filibuster,  the 
Civil  Rights  supporters  absented  themselves  from 
the  Committee  until  there  was  no  longer  a 
quorum.  At  this  point  Rep.  Colmer  (Dem.  Miss.) 
called  for  a  quorum,  and  Chm.  Smith  (Dem.  Va.) 
declared  the  hearing  adjourned.  This  automati- 
cally postponed  it  for  another  week  at  a  time 
when  minutes  were  precious. 

The  capitalist  press  said  that  the  Civil  Rights 
supporters  had  been  "caught  napping." 

Referral  to  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee. 
The  extra  week's  delay  in  the  House  permitted 
other  legislation  to  precede  the  Civil  Rights  bill 
in  the  House  and  so  it  was  not  finally  passed 
there  until  July  23.  It  was  abundantly  clear  to  the 


58 


most  casual  observer  that  it  was  unimportant 
what  happened  in  the  House  by  this  time.  It  was 
understood  that  the  bill  was  headed  for  the 
Senate  Judiciary  Committee  where  it  was  sched- 
uled for  oblivion.  The  New  York  Times  of  July  20 
reported  that  the  debate  in  the  House  was  "car- 
ried on,  despite  the  intensity  of  the  fight,  with  a 
large  measure  of  good  humor... the  whole  strug- 
gle was  exposed  in  argument  as  being  a  futile 
operation... it  was  evident  the  House  Members 
had  made  it  a  vehicle  for  putting  themselves  in 
the  record  for  their  own  campaign."  In  other 
words,  the  Civil  Rights  bill  was  being  used  as  a 
political  football  by  the  liberal  congressmen. 

So  the  bill  was  cynically  voted  on  and  passed 
on  July  23.  Then  it  went  to  the  floor  of  the 
Senate.  The  only  possibility  of  keeping  the  bill 
alive  would  have  been  an  objection  from  the  floor 
to  its  being  referred  to  [James]  Eastland's 
Judiciary  Committee.  But  some  strange  coinci- 
dence took  Senator  Hennings  (who  was  largely 
in  charge  of  strategy  for  the  Civil  Rights  Senate 
consideration)  off  the  floor  of  the  Senate  at  the 
strategic  moment,  and  according  to  the  NY  Times 
(July  24)  he  "was  not  on  the  floor  to  object 
....Someone  of  the  civil  rights  group  was  caught 
napping,  and  the  bill  went  quickly  and  firmly 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Eastland  panel." 

Locking  the  bill  in  Committee.  The  basic 
device  by  which  the  bill  was  locked  in  committee 
was  this:  those  senators  playing  the  role  of  Civil 
Rights  supporters,  although  they  had  a  majority 
on  the  Committee,  agreed  not  to  report  out  this 
particular  bill  except  by  unanimous  vote  of  the 
entire  committee. 

To  obscure  this  particular  piece  of  treachery 
on  the  part  of  the  "liberal"  Democrats  sitting  on 
the  Committee  and  to  attempt  to  camouflage  their 
role  as  the  "caught  napping  Civil  Rights  support- 
ers" on  the  Senate  floor,  Senator  Lehman  on  July 
24  moved  to  discharge  the  bill  from  committee. 
This  was  brushed  aside  on  technical  grounds  by 
Senate  Majority  Leader  [Lyndon]  Johnson  and 
defeated. 

This  conspiracy  against  the  Civil  Rights  bill 
in  the  84th  Congress  deserves  to  be  placed  beside 
that  conspiracy  by  which  the  question  of  popular 
sovereignty,  through  the  Dred  Scott  decision, 
opened  the  door  to  the  nationalization  of  slavery 
in  the  last  years  before  the  Civil  War.  Lincoln's 
contention,  which  he  proved  in  public  debate, 
was  that  a  conspiracy  against  free  choice  by  the 
people  had  existed  from  the  beginning  between 
Stephen  Douglas  (Dem.  111.),  Pierce  (the  outgoing 


Democratic  president),  Buchanan  (the  incoming 
president)  and  Taney  (Chief  Justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court).  The  object  of  this  conspiracy 
was  to  make  a  niche  in  Douglas'  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill  into  which  the  Dred  Scott  decision  could  be 
placed. 

The  analogy  which  Lincoln  made  in  his 
speech  "A  House  Divided"  is  particularly  appli- 
cable to  the  present  case.  He  said:  "We  cannot 
absolutely  know  that  all  these  exact  adaptations 
are  the  result  of  preconcert.  But  when  we  see  a 
lot  of  framed  timbers,  different  portions  of  which 
we  know  have  been  gotten  out  at  different  times 
and  places  and  by  different  workmen— Stephen 
(Douglas),  Franklin  (Pierce),  Roger  (Taney)  and 
James  (Buchanan),  for  instance— and  when  we 
see  these  timbers  joined  together,  and  see  they 
exactly  make  the  frame  of  a  house  or  a  mill,  all 
the  tenons  and  mortices  exactly  fitting,  and... 
adapted  to  their  respective  places,  and  not  a  piece 
too  many  or  too  few— not  omitting  even  scaffold- 
ing—or, if  a  single  piece  be  lacking,  we  can  see 
the  place  in  the  frame  exactly  fitted  and  prepared 
to  yet  bring  such  piece  in— in  such  a  case,  we  find 
it  impossible  to  not  believe  that  Stephen  and 
Franklin  and  Roger  and  James  all  understood  one 
another  from  the  beginning,  and  all  worked  upon 
a  common  plan  or  draft  drawn  up  before  the  first 
lick  was  struck." 

The  scuttling  of  the  Civil  Rights  bill  was  such 
a  structure  of  "framed  timbers... gotten  out  at  dif- 
ferent times  and  places  and  by  different  work- 
men"—Howard  (Smith),  James  (Eastland),  Tom 
(Hennings),  Lyndon  (Johnson)  and  Herbert  (Leh- 
man). And  when  we  see  these  timbers  joined  to- 
gether so  perfectly  in  the  construction  of  a  series 
of  maneuvers  which  succeeds  so  smoothly  in  get- 
ting rid  of  the  one  piece  of  legislation  which 
could  upset  the  political  equilibrium  of  the 
country  and  expose  the  capitalist  politicians  as 
fakers,  we  are  quite  as  justified  as  Lincoln  in 
believing  that  the  whole  thing  must  have  been 
cooked  up  before  hand  and  that  "all  worked  upon 
a  common  plan  or  draft  drawn  up  before  the  first 
lick  was  struck." 

This  is  to  be  expected  from  the  capitalist 
politicians.  It  is  quite  in  keeping  with  the  tradi- 
tions. But  when  the  People's  World  conceives  it  to 
be  its  job  not  only  to  support  the  treacherous 
"supporters  of  Civil  Rights"  up  and  down  the  line, 
to  become  a  partner  in  their  betrayal  by  covering 
it  up  from  the  left,  then  conditions  in  the  leader- 
ship of  the  party  have  indeed  become  grave. 

The  P.W.  history  of  the  Civil  Rights  fight  in 


59 


Congress  is: 

Mar.  29:  "Civil  rights  bill  pushed  in  House": 
"A  civil  rights  bloc  of  Congressmen  Wednesday 
launched  a  drive  to  pass  a  far-reaching  bill 
striking  down  discrimination...." 

Apr.  16:  "Demo  Senator  tells  Ike:  Stiffen 
stand  on  civil  rights":  "Thomas  C.  Hennings..., 
chairman  of  the  Senate  Civil  Rights  Subcommit- 
tee, charges  that  the  Administration  program ...  of- 
fers only  a  fraction..."  etc. 

Apr.  23:  "Key  test  for  civil  rights  bill 
Tuesday":  "Rep.  James  Roosevelt...,  a  leader  of 
the  House  civil  rights  bloc,  warned  today  that  fast 
action  is  essential..."  etc. 

June  13:  "Civil  rights  bill  showdown  today": 
more  accurate  would  have  been  the  substitution 
of  "sellout"  for  "showdown." 

The  P.  W.  is  building  up  the  liberal  Democrats 
as  determined  fighters  at  this  stage.  As  the  con- 
spiracy unfolds,  the  P.W.  serves  as  a  left  covering 
for  the  betrayal. 

When  the  transfer  of  the  bill  from  the  House 
Judiciary  to  the  House  Rules  Committee  took  two 
months  instead  of  two  days,  the  P.W.  claimed  that 
it  was  because  "Southern  members  of  the  House 
Judiciary  Committee  wanted  to  file  a  minority 
report,  and  they  took  their  time  in  writing  it." 
The  P.W.  does  not  mention  that  the  majority 
holds  all  the  basic  rights  if  it  chooses  to  exercise 
them. 

When  the  Rules  Committee  finally  got  ready 
to  vote  on  the  bill  and  the  liberals  absented 
themselves  to  permit  another  stall  for  lack  of 
quorum,  the  P.W.,  instead  of  exposing  the  liberal 
betrayal,  fulminated  against  the  "Dixiecrats": 
"The  long-delayed  civil  rights  bill  may  come  up 
for  still  another  test  this  coming  Thursday  after 
having  been  sidetracked  by  a  Dixiecrat 
parliamentary  sneak  play  last  Thursday"  {P.W., 
June  25). 

No  reference  is  to  be  found  in  the  P.W.  of  the 
curious  absence  from  the  floor  of  the  Senate  of 
Sen.  Hennings  at  the  time  the  bill  landed  there, 
nor  of  the  failure  of  any  member  of  the  group  of 
spurious  "Civil  Rights  supporters"  to  say  one 
word  in  objection  to  its  being  sent  to  Eastland's 
Committee.  Nor  is  there  a  mention  of  the  liberal 
senators'  agreement  not  to  report  the  bill  out  of 
Eastland's  Committee  without  unanimous  vote. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  probable  that  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  congressional  carnival,  there 
was  probably  not  a  single  capitalist  paper  in  the 
country  which  went  to  such  pains  to  cover  up  the 
betrayal  of  the  Civil  Rights  bill  by  the  liberal 


Democrats  as  did  the  People's  Daily  World. 

While  the  capitalist  press  as  exemplified  by 
the  New  York  Times  at  least  reported  the  relevant 
facts,  the  P.W.,  by  ignoring  some  (such  as  the 
"caught  napping"  episode)  and  over-stressing 
others,  creates  an  idealistic  picture  of  the  "Civil 
Rights  bloc"  waging  a  brave  though  losing  battle 
against  tremendous  odds:  "the  Senate  was  chal- 
lenged to  stay  in  session  and  pass  the  measure" 
(by  virtue  of  the  "smashing  House  victory"  which 
was  more  accurately  described  by  the  Times  as  a 
game  of  political  football)  (P.W.,  July  24). 

P.W.,  July  25:  "Liberal  Demo  Senators 
blocked  in  fight  for  civil  rights  bill."  This  was  two 
days  after  they  had  been  "caught  napping." 
"Liberal  Northern  Democrats  were  blocked  Tues- 
day in  an  effort  to  save  the  House-passed  civil 
rights  bill  from  certain  death  in  the  Senate 
Judicial  Committee  headed  by  Sen.  James  O.  East- 
land . . . ,  leader  of  Senate  white  supremacists."  No 
mention  of  the  "liberal"  majority  on  Sen.  East- 
land's Committee. 

P.W.,  July  26:  "GOP,  Dixie  allies  dump  civil 
rights."  In  thus  summarizing  the  scuttling  of  the 
bill,  the  P.W.  on  the  following  day  analyzes  the 
one  element  which  "was  not  foreseen"  by  an 
otherwise  farsighted  Civil  Rights  bloc:  that  "the 
Administration  would  desert  the  fight." 

So,  instead  of  exposing  the  real  culprits— 
those  liberal  congressmen  whose  seats  in  Con- 
gress depend  upon  labor  and  Negro  votes,  but 
who  use  the  Civil  Rights  question  as  a  political 
football,  betraying  the  struggle  at  every  decisive 
turn— the  P.W.  makes  the  whole  thing  merely  a 
piece  of  Democratic  Party  election  propaganda. 
That  is,  the  P.W.  also  uses  the  Civil  Rights  fight  as 
a  political  football. 

The  new  "coalition"  apparently  requires  that 
we  attach  ourselves  as  a  left  covering  to  this  gang 
of  conspiratorial  fakers  on  Civil  Rights. 


Conclusion 

It  is  thus  demonstrated  that  the  new  "coali- 
tionism"  as  illustrated  by  the  Democratic  Party 
orientation  during  the  past  months  resulted  in 
placing  the  party  in  disgraceful  positions  before 
the  Negro  people.  It  has  led  us  toward  GRADUAL- 
ISM on  the  question  of  integration,  at  the  same 
time  that  we  have  a  very  correct  article  rejecting 
gradualism  ("Enough  of  Gradualism,"  P.W.). 


60 


It  has  made  our  policy  a  tail-end  to  the  labor 
bureaucracy  and  the  liberal  betrayers  of  Civil 
Rights. 

It  has  brought  us  into  actual  support  of 
"moderate"  white  supremacy. 

It  has  taken  us  toward  liberalism  in  our  ap- 
proach to  prejudice.  This  is  no  "mainstream";  it 
is  a  muddy  back-wash  of  reaction  and 
compromise! 

We  feel  that  the  District  Negro  Commission 
has  a  special  responsibility  in  addition  to  the 
general  responsibility  of  members  and  leaders  to 
demand  that  this  preconvention  discussion  take 
a  serious  and  critical  review  of  our  work  along 
the  lines  of  this  report,  and  that  the  coming  na- 
tional convention  be  prepared  to  rectify  the  great 
harm  which  has  been  done  to  the  party  and  its 
reputation  in  the  Negro  community  as  the  result 
of  the  policy  of  the  past  period. 

In  the  meantime,  to  begin  the  task  of  making 


a  turn  toward  realistic  revolutionary  participation 
in  the  Negro  struggle  and  in  the  support  of  its 
true  objectives,  the  following  program  of  action 
should  be  elaborated  and  implemented. 

1 .  Truthful  and  factual  exposure  of  the  role 
of  the  liberals  in  the  fight  for  Civil  Rights. 

2.  All-out  campaigns  of  support  by  the  party 
directly  and  by  our  forces  in  the  unions  and  other 
mass  organizations  for  the  heroic  struggles  now 
going  on  in  the  South:  the  Montgomery  and  Tal- 
lahassee boycotts,  etc.  These  fighters,  far  in  ad- 
vance of  the  general  working  class,  are  conduct- 
ing a  vanguard  struggle  against  American  capital 
which  demands  that  we  do  everything  in  our 
power  to  assist,  support  and  spread  their  struggle. 

3.  A  return  to  the  practical  day-to-day  strug- 
gle against  discrimination  on  the  neighborhood 
and  local  union  level,  unfettered  by  whatever  re- 
lations we  may  have  with  the  capitalist  politicians 
and  in  the  spirit  of  the  struggle  of  the  masses. 


Resolution  on  the  Negro  Struggle 


From  SWP  Discussion  Bulletin  Vol.  18,  No.  11  (September  1957).  Fraser's 
document,  dated  25  May  1 957,  was  submitted/or  discussion  at  the  SWP's  1 7th 
National  Convention.  It  was  counterposed  to  "The  Class  Struggle  Road  to  Negro 
Equality,"  sponsored  by  the  SWP  Political  Committee  and  largely  written  by 
Farrell  Dobbs. 


I.  The  Permanent  Revolution  in  America 

The  objective  conditions  have  matured  for 
the  eruption  of  the  class  struggle  in  the  South. 
The  task  of  this  struggle  will  be  to  overthrow  the 
fascist-like  yoke  of  white  supremacy. 

Since  the  destruction  of  popular  government 
in  the  South  at  the  close  of  the  Reconstruction, 
the  Southern  Bourbon  oligarchy,  in  close  alliance 
with  the  whole  American  capitalist  class,  adapted 
the  social  relations  of  chattel  slavery  to  the 
requirements  of  property  relations  and  capitalist 
production. 

The  capitalists  and  planters  achieved  this  Jim 
Crow  system  by  a  method  which  has  been  copied 
by  all  the  imperialist  ruling  classes  of  the  world. 
They  broke  up  the  working  masses  into  hostile 
racial  groups  by  the  use  of  organized  murder  and 
terrorism  against  the  Negroes  and  all  who  would 
stand  side  by  side  with  them.  They  degraded 
labor  through  the  enforced  peonage  of  the  Ne- 
groes. They  created  a  white  middle  class  which 
derived  special  privileges  from  the  degradation  of 
labor  in  general  and  the  Negro  in  particular.  They 
eliminated  popular  government  and  substituted 
the  rule  of  a  small  minority  of  the  privileged,  the 
rich,  the  powerful:  the  white  supremacists. 

By  creating  a  living  hell  for  the  Negro  people, 
the  ruling  classes  were  thus  able  to  achieve  a 
super-exploitation  of  all  Southern  labor,  bringing 
in  profits  which  could  be  compared  with  those 
from  colonial  exploitation. 

Thus,  a  whole  social  system  became  organ- 
ized around  the  degradation  of  the  Negro— a 
system  which  became  an  integrated  and  indispen- 
sable part  of  the  economic,  social  and  political 
structure  of  American  capitalism. 

The  emancipation  of  the  Negro  people 
through  social,  political  and  economic  equality  is 
the  fundamental  condition  for  this  liberation  of 
all  the  oppressed  in  the  South.  This  requires  the 


destruction  of  the  whole  Southern  system.  Short 
of  this  there  can  be  little  change  and  few 
democratic  rights  for  anyone. 

However,  the  permanent  revolution  in  Amer- 
ica reveals  itself  in  the  following  manner:  the 
Southern  system  represents  massive  survivals  of 
chattel  slavery.  These  survivals  take  the  form  of 
great  social  problems  unsolved  by  the  Civil  War 
and  Reconstruction:  an  antiquated  system  of  land 
tenure,  the  absence  of  democratic  rights,  segre- 
gation and  racial  discrimination.  The  solution  of 
these  questions  was  the  responsibility  of  the 
capitalist  class  when  it  took  the  national  power 
from  the  slaveowners  in  1860.  But  they  proved 
incapable  of  this.  So  these  survivals  of  an  antique 
system  of  exploitation  have  become  integrated 
into  the  capitalist  structure  and  form  a  com- 
ponent part  thereof. 

Capitalism  could  not  solve  these  problems 
during  its  youth  and  virility,  even  under  con- 
ditions of  waging  a  bitter  war  against  the  slave 
power.  Now,  when  amidst  the  decay  and  death 
agony  of  capitalism,  these  problems  have  become 
integrated  into  its  very  structure,  the  capitalist 
class  will  positively  not  prove  able  to  solve  them. 
This  circumstance  leads  to  the  inescapable  con- 
clusion that  although  the  tasks  of  the  liberation 
of  the  South  are  of  an  elementary  democratic 
nature,  they  have  no  solution  within  the  frame- 
work of  American  capitalism:  they  become  a  part 
of  the  socialist  struggle  of  the  proletariat  to 
overthrow  the  whole  capitalist  system  of 
production. 

The  second  manifestation  of  the  permanent 
revolution  lies  in  the  question  of  leadership  of 
the  Negro  struggle.  The  goal  of  the  Negro  strug- 
gle has  been  determined  historically:  the  elimina- 
tion of  racial  discrimination  lies  through  the 
struggle  for  economic,  political  and  social  equal- 
ity. The  axis  of  this  struggle  is  the  fight  against 
segregation.  At  the  present  time  the  leadership  of 


61 


62 


this  struggle  is  in  the  hands  of  the  middle  class. 
This  Negro  middle  class  suffers  social,  economic 
and  political  discrimination  because  of  skin  color. 
It  is  a  far  more  terrible  discrimination  than  is  the 
usual  lot  of  privileged  layers  of  an  oppressed 
group.  This  circumstance  has  produced  a  great 
galaxy  of  Negro  scholars  who  have  brilliantly 
analyzed  and  plumbed  the  depths  and  sources  of 
racial  oppression. 

But,  at  the  same  time,  the  position  of  the  mid- 
dle class  as  a  whole  derives  from  and  feeds  upon 
segregation,  the  axis  of  the  social  force  which 
oppresses  them  as  Negroes. 

This  conflict  between  their  racial  and  class 
interests  causes  the  middle  class  leadership  to  act 
in  a  hesitant  and  treacherous  manner.  They  will 
prove  totally  incapable  of  giving  adequate  lead- 
ership to  the  movement  as  it  develops  on  to 
higher  planes  of  struggle. 

But  the  Negro  workers  have  no  such  conflict 
of  interest.  They  receive  no  such  economic  priv- 
ileges from  segregation.  On  the  contrary  they  are 
super-exploited  at  the  point  of  production  and  in 
all  economic  spheres.  Discrimination  against  them 
as  Negroes  is  intimately  connected  with  their  ex- 
ploitation as  workers.  Finding  themselves  below 
the  standard  of  living  of  even  the  white  workers, 
they  must  of  necessity  open  up  a  struggle  for 
racial  equality  as  the  key  to  raising  their  standard 
of  living  as  workers. 

So  as  it  falls  to  the  American  working  class 
as  a  whole  to  solve  the  basic  contradictions  of 
American  society,  so  does  it  fall  upon  the 
shoulders  of  the  Negro  proletariat  to  take  the 
lead  in  the  struggle  for  equality. 

II.  The  Significance  of  Montgomery 

The  successful  struggle  of  the  Negroes  of 
Montgomery  shows  a  changed  relationship  of 
forces  in  the  South.  This  is  the  first  successful 
sustained  mass  struggle  of  the  Negroes  of  the 
South  in  nearly  seventy  years.  It  demonstrates  the 
decay  and  disintegration  of  the  power  of  white 
supremacy  and  reveals  that  the  situation  is 
ripening  for  the  liberation  of  the  people  of  the 
South  from  the  Jim  Crow  system. 

The  changed  conditions  have  been  brought 
about  by  the  industrialization  of  the  South  and 
the  deepening  of  the  penetration  of  monopoly 
capitalism  into  all  spheres  of  life.  The  salient 
features  of  this  change  have  been:  (1)  The  urban- 
ization of  the  Negro  population  which  now  finds 
its  center  of  gravity  shifted  from  the  dispersed 
rural  areas  into  powerful  mass  forces  in  the  cities. 


(2)  The  undermining  of  the  mass  base  of  the 
Southern  system  through  the  partial  destruction 
of  the  white  middle  class  and  the  proletarianiza- 
tion of  large  contingents  of  this  former  mass 
petty  bourgeoisie. 

This  changed  relationship  of  forces  results  in 
the  inability  of  the  white  ruling  classes  to  crush 
at  will  the  aroused  and  organized  Negro  masses. 
The  magnitude  of  the  Negro  struggle,  reaching 
national  and  even  international  proportions,  has 
rendered  the  U.S.  government  helpless  to 
intervene  decisively  in  behalf  of  the  white 
supremacists. 

These  objective  conditions  have  been  rip- 
ening for  decades  and  provide  the  groundwork 
for  the  outbreak  of  the  Montgomery  masses.  The 
immediate  factor  preparing  the  masses  for  the 
actual  struggle  was  the  [Emmett]  Till  case  and  its 
aftermath,  which  demonstrated  to  the  Negroes 
that  the  Federal  Government  would  do  nothing 
against  the  Jim  Crow  system,  that  any  feeling 
that  the  Negroes  had  an  ally  in  the  national 
capital  was  an  illusion,  and  that  if  anything  was 
to  be  done  they  would  have  to  do  it  themselves. 

The  struggle  is  now  beginning  to  unfold.  As 
it  develops,  all  the  resources  of  the  American 
capitalist  class  will  be  aligned  against  it:  all  the 
forces  of  reaction,  all  agencies  of  government,  the 
army,  the  avenues  of  information  and  the  schools, 
churches  and  courts.  Yet,  the  victory  of  the 
masses  will  be  assured  under  two  conditions: 

1 .  That  the  struggle  of  the  Southern  workers, 
led  by  the  Negroes,  will  rekindle  the  fires  of  the 
class  struggle  throughout  the  country  and  bring 
into  play  the  great  powers  of  the  American 
proletariat  in  solidarity  with  them. 

2.  That  the  Southern  masses  will  produce  a 
revolutionary  socialist  leadership  fully  conscious 
of  its  aims,  the  road  of  struggle,  the  magnitude 
of  the  task. 

The  Montgomery  boycotters  forecast  the 
unfolding  movement  which  will  take  the  lead  in 
the  emancipation  of  the  Southern  masses. 

We  support  the  courageous  internationalism 
of  their  sympathy  for  and  self-identification  with 
the  struggles  of  the  dark-skinned  colonial  masses. 
This  kinship  arises  from  the  common  bond  forged 
by  years  of  common  struggle  against  white  su- 
premacy. It  is  our  elementary  duty,  however,  to 
warn  the  Negro  people  away  from  Gandhi's  pro- 
gram of  "passive  resistance"  as  a  means  of  their 
liberation. 

This  program,  fostered  by  the  Indian 
bourgeoisie,  paralyzed  the  action  of  the  masses 


63 


of  people,  kept  the  Indian  capitalists  at  the  head 
of  the  movement  for  Indian  independence  and 
made  it  possible  for  the  native  bourgeoisie  to 
reap  all  the  rewards  of  the  struggle  against 
imperialism  at  the  expense  of  the  masses. 

In  the  United  States  this  program  has  been 
super-imposed  upon  the  struggle  in  Montgomery 
by  its  petty  bourgeois  leadership.  By  thus  iden- 
tifying a  dynamic  struggle  with  "resistance  in  the 
spirit  of  love  and  non-violence"  they  blunt  the 
consciousness  of  the  masses  who  require  a 
program  which  corresponds  with  the  reality  of 
their  militant  actions. 

We  hail  the  emergence  of  the  proletarian 
militants  in  the  Montgomery  struggle.  They  are 
the  coming  leaders  of  the  struggle  of  all  the 
Southern  masses.  It  is  they  who  have  nothing  to 
lose  and  the  world  to  gain.  Their  class  position 
gives  them  courage  and  insight,  for  it  is  they  who 
have  the  fundamental  stake  in  the  struggle 
against  the  Jim  Crow  system. 

We  salute  the  women  of  the  South  both  black 
and  white  for  their  heroic  role  in  the  struggle. 

The  unbounded  revolutionary  energy  of  the 
triply  oppressed  Negro  women  is  making  itself 
manifest  in  the  initiative  and  leadership  which 
they  have  given  to  the  movement  in  its  initial 
stages. 

The  decay  of  the  Southern  system  which 
foretells  its  doom  is  expressed  by  the  defection  of 
the  white  women  away  from  the  forces  of  white 
supremacy  and  by  their  organized  appearance  in 
greater  and  greater  numbers  in  joint  struggle  with 
the  Negroes.  This  is  the  proof  that  they  recognize 
that  they,  too,  are  the  victims  of  the  system  of 
white  supremacy.  They  understand  that  the  so- 
called  "chivalry"  of  Southern  tradition  degrades 
them:  that  the  pedestal  of  "sacred"  white 
womanhood  is  in  reality  a  prison  for  chattels 
which  denies  independence,  the  rights  of  citizens 
and  the  status  of  human  beings. 

They  are  aware  that  the  myth  of  "sacred" 
(i.e.,  segregated)  white  womanhood  is  one  of  the 
focal  points  of  the  ideology  of  white  supremacy 
and  ties  the  struggle  for  the  emancipation  of 
women  directly  to  that  of  the  Negroes. 

Other  large  sections  of  the  white  population 
hide  their  disgust  with  the  Southern  system  in 
fear  of  reprisal.  We  recommend  the  example  of 
the  women  and  urge  them  to  give  organized 
support  to  their  courageous  struggle. 

III.  The  Labor  Movement 

The  existence  of  the  Southern  social  system 


is  a  constant  mortal  threat  to  the  entire  labor 
movement  in  the  U.S.  Every  factor  of  political  and 
economic  life  shows  that  the  extension  of  union- 
ism into  the  open-shop  South  is  a  life  and  death 
question. 

But  unions  cannot  exist  on  any  mass  scale  in 
the  total  absence  of  elementary  democratic  rights. 
On  the  other  hand  labor  unions  will  grow  hand 
in  hand  with  the  successes  of  the  Civil  Rights 
movement.  Consequently  the  labor  movement 
must  dedicate  itself  to  the  destruction  of  white 
supremacy  as  the  only  way  to  assure  the  exten- 
sion of  unionism  into  the  South. 

We  call  upon  the  officials  of  the  AFL-CIO  to 
begin  the  campaign  to  organize  the  South  with 
a  repudiation  of  their  political  alliance  with  the 
liberal  Democrats  who  are  the  protectors  and  de- 
fenders of  the  Southern  Bourbons.  We  call  upon 
them  to  take  the  next  step  in  the  Southern  drive: 
to  declare  for  the  formation  of  a  political  party  of 
labor  which  would  become  the  political  and  or- 
ganizational center  of  the  struggle  against  Jim 
Crow. 

IV.  The  Advanced  Position  of  the  Negro  Movement 

The  struggle  for  racial  equality  is  an  integral 
part  of  the  struggle  of  the  American  working  class 
for  socialism.  The  connection  between  these  two 
goals  is  so  fundamental  that  one  cannot  be  en- 
visaged without  the  other. 

This  connection  has  been  implicit  from  the 
very  beginning  of  the  anti-slavery  struggle  and 
found  clearest  expression  in  Karl  Marx's  dictum 
to  white  American  workers:  "Labor  cannot  eman- 
cipate itself  in  the  white  skin  where  in  the  black 
it  is  branded."  The  consistent  logic  which  led 
many  abolitionist  leaders  such  as  Douglass  and 
Phillips  to  embrace  socialist  principles  confirmed 
this  connection. 

The  power  of  the  ruling  class  and  the  perni- 
cious influence  of  the  Southern  system  has  kept 
the  American  working  class  divided  along  color 
lines  for  long  periods  of  time.  However,  the  past 
twenty  years  have  demonstrated  again  in  life  the 
identity  of  interest  which  had  been  implicit  all 
along. 

The  close  connection  between  the  Negro 
struggle  for  equality  and  the  labor  struggle  be- 
came one  of  the  paramount  features  of  the  great 
struggles  of  the  1930's.  One  of  the  greatest 
achievements  of  unionism  during  this  stormy  up- 
surge was  the  successful  conclusion  of  the  long 
struggle  to  build  the  Brotherhood  of  Sleeping  Car 
Porters.  This  achievement  was  capped  by  the 


64 


emergence  of  the  CIO  which  represented  the  first 
mass  joining  of  the  two  movements  in  modern 
times. 

Together  during  the  30's  the  two  movements 
made  giant  strides.  But  with  the  preparation  for 
World  War  II  they  diverged:  the  CIO  under  the 
pressure  of  a  newly  created  bureaucracy  capit- 
ulated to  the  bosses  and  the  government  and  it 
wasn't  long  before  the  Communist  Party  did  like- 
wise. Together  they  sacrificed  the  interests  of  the 
working  class  to  the  needs  of  the  U.S.  imperialist 
war  machine.  But  the  Negro  movement,  under  the 
stimulus  of  workers  arising  from  great  depths  of 
super-exploitation,  refused  to  be  taken  in  or 
intimidated  by  the  patriotic  hysteria. 

Ever  since  the  beginning  of  1941  the  unions 
have  taken  one  backward  step  after  another  and 
the  bosses  have  followed  through  with  body 
blows.  Although  the  labor  movement  was  able  to 
mobilize  briefly  in  1946  for  a  successful  defense 
when  mortally  threatened,  it  soon  gave  in  again 
and  as  a  result  has  endured  a  never  ending  string 
of  humiliating  repressive  measures  inflicted  on 
them  by  the  government  and  the  employers. 

But  all  through  this  period  and  even  at  the 
height  of  the  worst  wave  of  reaction  which  has 
been  unleashed  against  the  American  workers  in 
many  decades— the  Negro  movement  has  regis- 
tered steady  advances.  The  source  of  this  dif- 
ference in  achievement  lies  in  the  divergent  lines 
of  development  which  were  laid  out  in  1941 
when  the  Negroes  were  organizing  for  a  March 
on  Washington  in  defiance  of  the  needs  of  the 
government  for  domestic  tranquility  at  the  very 
time  that  the  labor  bureaucracy  was  giving  no- 
strike  pledges  to  this  same  government.  The  Ne- 
groes were  able  to  withstand  the  patriotic  pres- 
sure upon  them  and  to  see  through  the  lies  of 
American  imperialism  because  of  their  advanced 
consciousness  derived  from  super-exploitation  and 
discrimination. 

Upon  this  background  the  Montgomery  up- 
rising propels  the  Negro  movement  into  a  greatly 
advanced  position  which,  coinciding  with  the  ebb 
tide  of  the  labor  movement,  approaches  isolation. 

And  this  poses  a  dual  danger:  First,  that  this 
great  movement  may  remain  isolated  and  be 
crushed  for  lack  of  needed  support  from  the  labor 
movement.  Second,  that  such  a  defeat  inflicted 
upon  this  dynamic  sector  of  the  working  class 
would  set  back  the  development  of  the  labor 
movement. 

It  is  the  duty  of  all  socialists  to  spare  no 
energy  in  rallying  the  working  class  and  the  labor 


movement  to  the  aid  of  the  Negroes  struggling  in 
the  South  and  to  connect  and  integrate  the 
struggles. 

But  the  decisive  force  in  determining  the 
future  course  of  events,  and  relations  of  the 
Southern  fighters  with  the  labor  movement  in  the 
North  and  West,  is  the  Negro  movement  itself.  In 
this  vital  movement  just  unfolding  there  is  great 
attractive  power:  in  the  relations  between  the  Ne- 
gro movement  and  the  labor  movement  the  Negroes 
hold  the  initiative.  But  only  a  proletarian  leader- 
ship of  the  Negro  movement  will  be  able  to  util- 
ize properly  this  strategic  advantage  and  to  draw 
the  labor  movement  into  support  and  interven- 
tion. Such  a  leadership  will  grasp  the  political 
significance  of  the  situation. 

Above  all,  the  Negro  movement  must  beware 
of  the  "isolationist"  feeling  that  if  the  labor 
movement  doesn't  seem  to  move,  and  if,  as  a  con- 
sequence, the  working  class  as  a  whole  appears 
unmoved  by  and  unconcerned  with  the  heroic 
struggle  in  the  South,  then  the  Negro  movement 
can  turn  its  back  and  go  its  way  alone.  Such  a 
course  would  be  disastrous,  would  end  in  the 
crushing  defeat  of  the  Negroes  and  retard  the 
whole  labor  struggle. 

Such  proposals  arise  from  an  underestimation 
of  the  task  ahead  and  from  the  dangerous  illusion 
that  racial  equality  can  be  achieved  without  the 
overthrow  and  complete  destruction  of  the  South- 
ern social  system.  In  this  struggle,  the  Negroes 
will  be  the  initiators,  because  of  their  super- 
exploitation  and  advanced  consciousness.  But  the 
fight  can  be  won  only  by  the  united  struggle  of 
all  toilers. 

V.    What  Political  Road? 

The  advanced  consciousness  of  the  Negro 
movement  expresses  itself  politically.  First,  by 
their  refusal  to  be  taken  in  by  patriotic  war  prop- 
aganda. Second,  by  their  willingness  to  launch 
broad  struggles  in  spite  of  the  reaction.  This 
political  understanding  also  encompasses  the 
knowledge  that  the  problem  of  civil  rights  is 
neither  a  moral  question,  one  of  law,  or  of  the 
"hearts  and  minds  of  men,"  but  that  it  is  a 
political  question  which  must  be  fought  by  means 
of  political  party. 

The  Negroes  are  also  quite  aware  that  the 
Democratic  and  Republican  parties  are  their  ene- 
mies, and  that  serious  advancement  of  the  strug- 
gle for  equality  is  impossible  through  these 
channels. 

But  the  Negroes  are  the  captives  of  the  labor 


65 


bureaucracy:  the  alliance  between  labor  and  the 
Negro  people  finds  its  degenerate  expression  in 
the  captivity  of  the  Negro  middle  class  leaders  in 
the  Democratic  Party.  We  have  every  sympathy 
with  the  Negroes  in  this  political  bondage  and 
with  the  dramatic  move  of  Roy  Wilkins,  shortly 
followed  by  Representative  [Adam  Clayton] 
Powell,  to  the  Republican  Party,  as  signifying  a 
protest  against  the  hypocrisy  of  the  liberals  and 
the  labor  leaders  rather  than  support  to  the 
Republican  bankers. 

But  this  situation  dictates  bolder  action  by 
the  Negro  leaders:  the  isolation  of  the  Negro 
movement  demands  that  it  give  full  scope  to  its 
advanced  position  to  raise  the  workers  in  the 
labor  movement  toward  it:  we  call  upon  the  Ne- 
gro leaders  to  reject  the  degenerate  alliance  with 
the  labor  fakers  in  the  party  of  the  Bourbons  as 
well  as  the  ineffectual  bolts  to  the  Republican 
Party.  We  urge  them  to  join  with  the  Socialist 
Workers  Party  in  the  demand  upon  the  labor 
unions  that  they  form  a  party  of  the  working 
class. 

We  call  upon  them  to  emulate  the  qualities 
of  leadership  of  a  Frederick  Douglass,  who  was 
not  afraid  to  break  even  with  William  Lloyd  Gar- 
rison and  to  split  the  abolitionist  society  when  an 
opportunity  appeared  to  prepare  the  way  for  the 
coming  political  party  of  emancipation. 

VI.  The  Communist  Party 

The  Communist  Party,  at  one  time  the  most 
successful  of  the  socialist  organizations  in  attract- 
ing Negro  militants,  has  by  now  dissipated  its 
influence  in  the  Negro  community  and  lost  the 
large  majority  of  its  once  powerful  Negro  cadre. 
This  cadre  was  won  by  the  prestige  which  the 
Russian  Revolution  commanded  among  peoples 
who  seriously  wanted  a  social  change,  and  by 
years  of  devoted  work  by  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
party. 

The  basic  reason  for  the  present  isolation  of 
the  Communist  Party  in  the  Negro  community  lies 
in  the  following  political  circumstance:  the 
leaders  of  the  CP  have  never  hesitated  to  sacrifice 
the  interests  of  the  Negro  people  to  the  interests 
of  maintaining  alliances  with  privileged  sections 
of  the  white  population  who  might  temporarily 
be  of  use  in  furthering  the  interests  of  the  Soviet 
bureaucracy. 

This  was  most  horribly  demonstrated  during 
World  War  II  when  the  CP  openly  denounced 
struggles  of  the  Negro  people  as  being  disruptive 
of  the  "war  effort"  of  American  imperialism  which 


was  in  alliance  with  the  Soviet  government.  Be- 
trayals of  a  like  nature  have  followed  the  various 
twists  and  turns  of  policy  until  the  Negro 
militants  have  become  completely  disaffected. 

A  second  cause  for  the  dissipation  of  the 
influence  of  the  CP  has  been  the  persistence  with 
which  it  clung  to  the  erroneous  idea  that  the 
Negroes  constitute  a  nation  and  that  their  con- 
sequent political  development  would  lead  them 
to  assert  the  right  to  nationhood  and  national 
self-determination.  The  authors  of  this  doctrine 
envisaged  that  their  theoretical  contribution  was, 
therefore,  to  prepare  the  ground  for  this  inevi- 
table separation. 

This  whole  line  of  thought  is  in  diametric 
opposition  to  the  real  nature  of  the  Negro  strug- 
gle and  its  historical  tradition.  It  is  segregation  by 
skin  color  which  is  the  traditional  and  present 
enemy  of  the  Negroes,  not  national  oppression. 

The  movement  of  the  Negro  people  is  the 
oldest  social  movement  in  existence  in  the  United 
States.  It  is  over  300  years  old,  and  since  1818, 
the  beginning  of  the  struggle  against  the  American 
Colonization  Society,  this  movement  has  had  a  vir- 
tually uninterrupted  existence  and  one  fundamental 
direction:  integration.  Ever  since  then,  the  funda- 
mental course  of  the  Negro  struggle  has  been  to 
reject  the  demand  of  the  ruling  class  that  they 
become  a  separate  subordinate  nation,  through 
segregation,  and  to  demand  the  full  rights  of 
American  citizenship  and  nationality.  It  will  take 
a  social  catastrophe,  more  devastating  than  any 
yet  visited  upon  the  Negro  people,  to  change  the 
fundamental  course  of  their  struggle. 

The  Negroes  considered  that  it  was  impudent, 
stupid  and  against  their  interests  for  the  Stalinists 
arbitrarily  to  brush  aside  this  great  tradition  of 
struggle  and  say  to  them  in  effect:  "You'll  take 
self-determination  and  like  it.  When  you  develop 
out  of  your  great  political  backwardness,  the  CP 
will  be  vindicated."  The  Negroes  replied  that  they 
already  had  segregation  which  was  their  worst 
enemy,  and  that  the  plans  for  a  segregated  social- 
ism didn't  appeal  to  them.  In  spite  of  this  almost 
universal  reaction  in  the  Negro  community,  the 
Stalinists  blindly  hung  on  to  this  theory. 

Another  consequence  of  this  theory  was  that 
it  created  an  almost  gravitational  attraction 
between  the  CP  and  sections  of  the  Negro  middle 
class.  This  was  the  only  social  group  in  the  Negro 
community  in  which  there  seemed  to  be  any  ex- 
pression of  nationalism.  This  nationalism  took  the 
form  of  a  willingness  to  accept  segregation,  the 
economic  foundation  of  the  Negro  middle  class 


66 


and  to  confine  the  struggle  to  gaining  improve- 
ments for  its  position  within  the  framework  of 
segregation. 

Even  during  the  "left"  periods,  this  alliance 
between  the  CP  leaders  and  the  Negro  middle 
classes  resulted  in  the  frustration  of  efforts  of  the 
rank  and  file  communists,  both  white  and  black, 
to  undertake  serious  struggle. 

The  present  policy  of  "peaceful  co-existence" 
is  similar  to  the  World  War  II  jingoism  in  its 
betrayal  of  the  Negro  struggle.  We  call  the 
attention  of  the  Communist  Party  to  the  following 
actions  and  policies  of  the  past  year  which  tend 
to  place  the  whole  radical  movement  in  bad 
repute  in  the  Negro  community: 

1.  Support  of  the  "Louisville  Plan."  This 
reactionary  scheme  to  compromise  the  demand  of 
the  Negroes  for  immediate  desegregation  of  the 
public  schools,  through  "voluntary  segregation," 
was  blatantly  supported  by  spokesmen  for  the 
Communist  Party.  (See  frontpage  illustrated  story 
People's  World,  Sept.  21,  1956.) 

2.  Support  of  the  Louisiana  right  to  work  law. 
This  amended  version  of  the  original  law  was 
condemned  by  the  National  Agricultural  Union 
and  other  spokesmen  for  Negro  workers  in  Loui- 
siana as  a  measure  which  gave  to  the  largely 
white  skilled  workers  certain  immunities  from  the 
law  at  the  expense  of  the  Negroes  and  other  agri- 
cultural, lumber,  processing,  etc.  workers.  The 
leaders  of  the  CP  committed  the  party  to  its  sup- 
port as  an  example  of  a  "peoples'  anti-monopoly 
coalition"  and  even  placed  this  support  in  its 
Draft  Program.  (See  Draft  Resolution  for  16th 
National  Convention  of  CP  presented  by  NC,  page 
32,  1956.) 

3.  Support  of  the  liberal  betrayal  of  the  civil 
rights  struggle  at  the  84th  Congress.  This  betrayal, 
now  exposed  by  Rep.  Powell  and  many  others, 
consisted  of  devices  whereby  the  liberal  Demo- 
crats could  guarantee  the  Bourbons  that  nothing 
would  come  of  the  Civil  Rights  legislation,  but 
that  the  liberals  should  be  permitted  to  appear  as 
partisans  of  the  legislation.  In  order  to  do  this, 
however,  they  needed  a  smokescreen.  The  Daily 
Worker  and  the  People's  World  provided  this 
admirably  for  them,  and  every  time  the  liberals 
betrayed  by  giving  in  to  the  Bourbons,  the  CP 
leaders  provided  the  smokescreen  by  endless  ful- 
minations  against  Eisenhower  or  the  "Dixiecrats." 

4.  Support  of  the  "moderate"  wing  of  White 
Supremacy.  The  so-called  moderate  wing  of  the 
Southern  white  supremacists,  represented  by  such 
figures  as  Lyndon  Johnson,  is  also  part  of  the 


projected  "anti-monopoly  coalition."  (See  Political 
Affairs,  June  1956.)  But  this  group  is  just  as  com- 
pletely anti-Negro  and  anti-union  as  the  rest  of 
the  Southern  Bourbon  politicians. 

The  support  of  these  reactionary  policies  by 
the  leaders  of  the  CP  disqualifies  them  completely 
from  speaking  with  any  authority  on  the  civil 
rights  struggle.  We  call  upon  them  to  repudiate 
these  policies  and  join  with  us  in  a  united  front 
of  action  in  defense  of  civil  rights  and  the  Negro 
struggle  around  the  following  propositions: 

1.  That  we  jointly  memorialize  Congress  to 
refuse  to  seat  the  Southern  Bourbon  poli- 
ticians, and  continue  to  so  refuse  until  it 
has  been  demonstrated  that  their  elections 
are  not  carried  out  in  violation  of  the  civil 
rights  of  the  people  of  the  South. 

2.  That  we  demand  of  the  president  of  the 
U.S.  a  second  Emancipation  Proclamation, 
proclaiming  the  workers  of  the  South  free 
from  the  white  supremacist  rulers  and 
proclaiming  an  immediate  and  uncondi- 
tional end  to  all  segregation,  discrim- 
ination, terrorism,  etc. 

3.  For  joint  action  in  all  local  struggles 
against  discrimination. 

4.  For  a  joint  program  for  all  socialists  in  the 
trade  union  movement  on  the  civil  rights 
question: 

a.  Demand  of  the  international  unions 
that  they  conduct  a  campaign  in  their 
Southern  locals  to  bring  them  into 
conformity  and  support  of  the  Negro 
struggle. 

b.  For  the  elimination  of  all  Jim  Crow  lo- 
cals and  other  discriminatory  practices. 

c.  Against  the  extension  of  wage  differ- 
entials and  the  privileges  of  skilled 
workers  bought  at  the  expense  of  the 
unskilled. 

d.  For  a  campaign  to  solve  the  discrim- 
ination inherent  in  the  fact  that  Ne- 
groes are  the  last  hired,  first  fired.  This 
discrimination  is  perpetuated  and  fro- 
zen in  most  prevailing  seniority  sys- 
tems. Seniority  lists  can  be  revised  to 
advance  the  seniority  of  that  number 
of  Negroes  required  to  maintain  an 
equitable  proportion  of  Negro  workers 
in  a  plant  at  any  given  time,  as  is  the 
policy  of  the  International  Union  of 
Mine,  Mill  and  Smelter  Workers. 

e.  For  all-out  aid  to  the  Southern  strug- 
gles and  to  demand  that  the  labor 


67 


movement  intervene  directly,  linking 
the  problem  of  the  organization  of  the 
South  to  the  struggle  against  white 
supremacy. 
5.    To    prepare    for   the    overthrow   of   the 
Southern  system  by  a  continued  democrat- 
ic discussion  of  all  issues  at  stake  in  the 
socialist  movement  with  the  object  of  cre- 
ating a  new  revolutionary  socialist  party 
which  is  the  only  assurance  of  victory. 

VII.  Negroes  and  the  SWP 

The  Negro  people  have  long  been  preparing 
for  the  opportunity  to  open  up  the  final  struggle 
against  white  supremacy.  Their  preparations  have 
been,  in  the  South,  painstaking  and  systematic.  As 
their  opportunity  comes  closer  in  time  and  more 
tangible  in  form,  they  must  review  their  prepara- 
tions and  consider  what  element  is  lacking  or  in 
insufficient  quantity  or  inadequate  quality. 

They  must  consider  that  they  are  a  vital  part 
of  a  great  world  revolutionary  process  which  has 
as  its  goal  the  reorganization  of  the  whole  globe 
along  lines  of  complete  equality  for  all,  through 
socialism. 

They  must  recognize  the  crisis  of  this  world 
revolutionary  movement:  that  while  the  masses 
of  the  world  have  demonstrated  their  willingness 
to  struggle  for  this  aim,  the  leadership  has  not 
responded  in  kind,  and  therefore  the  movement 
fails  to  fulfill  its  historical  goals.  This  has  resulted 
in  the  historical  crisis  of  leadership  which  is  the 
basic  problem  of  our  epoch. 

The  critical  point  of  all  preparation  for  strug- 
gle in  this  era  is  the  creation  of  adequate  leader- 
ship. The  struggles  of  all  peoples  and  all  classes 
require  the  organization  of  leadership  into  a  polit- 
ical party.  This  is  the  means  by  which  leadership 
can  be  tried  and  tested  and  is  the  means  for 
unifying  program  with  practice,  leadership  with 
ranks— and  keeping  them  all  in  proper  balance. 


We  call  upon  all  socialist-minded  Negroes  to 
take  advantage  of  the  ideological  ferment  in  the 
general  socialist  movement  around  the  question 
of  the  regroupment  of  socialist  forces.  This  discus- 
sion holds  forth  the  possibility  of  clearing  the 
political  atmosphere  and  creating  the  foundation 
for  a  more  powerful  socialist  party  through  the 
regroupment  of  the  revolutionary  currents. 

We  call  upon  them  to  participate  in  the  dis- 
cussions which  are  taking  place.  They  will  bring 
to  these  discussions  the  militance,  realism  and 
character  of  the  Negro  struggle  and  at  the  same 
time  broaden  their  own  understanding  of  it 
through  a  heightened  consciousness  of  socialist 
ideology. 

The  Negro  militants  have  the  following  ulti- 
mate responsibility  in  this  situation:  to  determine 
the  program  which  corresponds  to  the  objective 
needs  of  the  whole  struggle  and  to  make  it  theirs. 

We  call  upon  the  militant  Negro  workers  to 
join  the  Socialist  Workers  Party,  the  party  of  the 
American  revolution.  We  stand  before  them  as  the 
party  of  the  proletariat,  of  the  poor  and  oppres- 
sed. We  stand  upon  no  economic,  political  or 
social  privilege,  but  consider  that  the  oppressed 
of  the  world  must  act  together  to  gain  peace, 
prosperity,  security,  equality;  with  abundance  for 
all  but  special  privilege  for  none.  This  is  the  only 
way  to  save  the  world  from  the  catastrophes 
unleashed  by  decaying  capitalism. 

The  SWP  stands  before  the  Negro  people  as 
the  only  party  in  the  U.S.  which  has  never  under 
any  circumstances  forsaken  or  subordinated  the 
needs  of  the  Negro  struggle  in  the  interests  of 
alliance  with  privileged  groups  or  enemy  classes. 

We  call  upon  the  Negro  intellectuals  to  cast 
their  lot  with  the  proletariat.  This  is  the  class 
which  will  lead  the  Negro  struggle  to  victory.  But 
this  means,  first  of  all,  to  adhere  to  the  program 
of  revolutionary  socialism— which  is  the  only  road 
of  the  victorious  proletarian  struggle. 


Summary  Remarks  on  Negro  Discussion 


From  SWP  Discussion  Bulletin  Vol.  18,  No.  14  (October  1957).  Dick  Fraser 
debated  George  Breitman  at  the  SWP's  1 7th  National  Convention,  held  7-9  June 
1957.  The  Convention  adopted  the  Breitman  resolution  with  54  delegate  and 
33  consultative  votes  in  favor,  although  a  number  of  delegates  recorded 
objections  to  its  support  for  "self-determination"  and  for  the  slogan  "Federal 
Troops  to  the  South."  Five  delegate  and  five  consultative  votes  were  cast  for  the 
Fraser  resolution. 


A  study  of  the  first  discussions  of  the  Negro 
question  in  the  American  political  movement  re- 
veals that  the  question  which  was  originally  quite 
simple  has  become  extremely  complicated.  The 
Negro  struggle  for  equality  was  an  obvious  type 
of  movement,  as  viewed  by  the  IWW,  a  matter  of 
equality  for  all  workers.  They  would  not  tolerate 
any  ideas  of  segregation.  They  would  go  into  the 
deep  South  and  hold  integrated  meetings  there. 
It  was  simple,  but  incomplete.  It  required 
Marxism  to  clarify  the  question. 

Of  recent  years,  since  the  introduction  of  the 
nationalist  conception  of  the  Negro  question  by 
the  Stalinists,  the  problem  has  revolved  around 
the  question  of  what  is  the  nature  of  the  Negro 
question.  Dan  [Roberts]  says  it  is  a  national 
question  and  it  isn't  a  national  question.  So,  if  it 
isn't  a  national  question,  what  is  it?  It  is  a  racial 
question.  It  is  a  question  of  racial  discrimination. 
This  is  a  unique  category  of  special  oppression 
which  is  different  from  national  oppression. 

Religious  oppression,  which  Dan  relates  it  to, 
is  closely  associated  with  national  oppression.  It 
is  oppression  of  a  part  of  the  culture  of  a  people; 
but  that  is  not  what  the  Negro  question  is  like. 
The  Negro  question  is  only  like  itself.  That  is,  it 
is  a  unique  phenomenon  arising  fundamentally  in 
the  United  States,  and  emanating  from  there  in 
various  forms  throughout  the  world. 

Color  discrimination  is  a  unique  problem  and 
requires  an  analysis  of  its  own.  Upon  close  exami- 
nation the  first  thing  which  you  find  in  the  Negro 
question  is  its  diametric  opposites  to  the  national 
question.  Not  in  the  whole  history  of  the  national 
struggle  of  Europe  or  Asia,  did  you  ever  see  a 
national  minority  or  a  nation,  whose  fundamental 
struggle  was  the  right  to  assimilate  into  the  domi- 
nant culture.  You  never  saw  it.  It  is  the  diametric 
opposite  of  all  the  national  struggles. 


The  national  struggle  is  characterized  by  the 
desire  for  self-segregation,  the  desire  to  withstand 
the  pressure  of  the  dominant  nations  to  force 
them  to  assimilate,  give  up  their  economy,  give 
up  their  language,  their  culture  and  their  religion. 
All  of  the  militant  tendencies  of  the  nationalist 
movement  stress  the  requirements  of  the  nation 
to  organize  itself  and  to  segregate  itself  from  the 
nation  that  oppresses  it.  The  conservative,  concil- 
iatory elements  are  on  the  side  of  assimilation 
and  integration.  That  is  absolutely  characteristic 
of  the  national  struggle.  That  is  one  of  the  fun- 
damental characteristics  with  which  Marxists 
were  historically  confronted. 

This  was  the  problem  in  dispute  between 
Lenin  and  Luxemburg,  and  Lenin  and  everybody 
else  who  dealt  with  this  problem  of  nationalism. 
It  is  the  precise  opposite  of  the  Negro  struggle. 
From  the  very  beginning  of  the  modern  Negro 
struggle  150  years  ago,  all  tendencies  of  a  mili- 
tant, revolutionary,  progressive  nature  in  this 
struggle  have  tended  to  find  as  the  axis  of  their 
struggle  a  resistance  against  racial  separation 
because  this  is  the  weapon  of  racial  oppression. 

Comrade  Dan,  you  say  that  you  want  to  leave 
the  door  open  for  self-determination  at  some  fu- 
ture time.  Will  you  not  permit  the  Negroes  a  self- 
determination  now  based  upon  150  years  of 
struggle?  Everything  points  to  this  fact.  They  do 
not  want  to  be  designated  a  nation.  Why  do  you 
demand  to  place  this  designation  upon  their 
struggle?  It  is  not  a  national  struggle.  It  is  a 
struggle  against  racial  discrimination.  That's  from 
whence  it  derives  its  independent  and  dual  char- 
acter, i.e.,  its  independence  from  and  identity 
with  the  class  struggle. 

It  is  the  feature  of  the  permanent  revolution 
in  American  life.  What  is  involved  is  the  vestigial 
remains  of  color  slavery,  an  antique  social  system 


68 


69 


unsolved  by  the  capitalist  revolution  in  the  Civil 
War  and  Reconstruction.  These  vestiges,  the 
social  relations  of  chattel  slavery,  color  segre- 
gation, color  discrimination,  white  supremacy 
adapted  to  and  integrated  into  the  whole  eco- 
nomic, political  and  social  life  of  capitalism, 
become  one  of  the  important  driving  forces  of  the 
movement  for  socialism  because  capitalism  can  no 
longer  even  be  considered  as  a  possible  ally  of  the 
Negro  people  in  the  solution  of  this  question.  The 
capitalist  class  has  decided  this  long  ago.  They 
integrated  their  system  with  the  Jim  Crow  system, 
it  is  one  and  the  same  thing  now. 

Consequently,  the  Negro  struggle  for  equal- 
ity, in  its  independence,  arises  out  of  racial 
oppression,  attacking  a  Southern  social  system 
which  is  the  result  of  these  vestiges  incorporated 
in  the  capitalist  system.  This  struggle  begins  on 
the  plane  of  elementary  consciousness.  Equality 
is  an  elementary  democratic  demand  which  has 
no  solution  under  capitalism  and  therefore  be- 
comes, because  of  its  nature,  a  transition  to  the 
struggle  for  socialism. 

Comrade  Dot  accuses  me  of  accusing  the  P.C. 
of  being  pro-Stalinist  and  pro-reformist. 

(Note  by  Kirk:  The  following  interchange 
was  not  picked  up  in  the  transcription.  I 
have  reconstructed  it  as  it  occurred 
according  to  my  memory: 

Interruption  from  the  Presiding  Committee: 
That  what  you  said  yesterday? 

Kirk:  That's  not  what  I  said. 

Presiding  Committee:  Then  you  implied  it. 

Kirk:  I  implied  nothing  of  the  kind. 

Presiding  Committee:  Let's  have  plain 
speaking  here. 

Kirk:  I  say  that  your  program  is  an 
adaptation  to  reformism.) 

That  means  that  you  do  not  differentiate  your- 
selves from  the  reformists  in  the  Southern  move- 
ment. The  critical  problem  of  the  moment,  the 
crisis  of  leadership  in  the  Negro  movement, 
revolves  around  the  question  of  reformism  or 
revolution,  and  the  resolution  does  not  differ- 
entiate between  these  two  tendencies.  If  it  did  we 
would  have  a  different  situation  today  in  the 
convention.  I  would  not  have  written  another 
resolution. 

The  resolution  does  not  differentiate.  It 
supports  the  basic  line  of  the  religious  pacifist 
leadership  of  the  Negro  movement  in  the  South. 

Comrade  Breitman  and  the  resolution  say 
that  the   Southern   Leaders   Conference   is   the 


differentiation,  that  this  is  the  differential  force 
in  the  Negro  movement;  and  that's  not  true.  The 
S.L.C.  is  just  another  wing  of  the  petty-bourgeois 
leadership.  This  is  not  the  decisive  differentiation. 
The  differentiation  will  come  as  a  result  of  our 
being  able  to  inject  the  revolutionary  proletarian 
program  into  that  struggle.  And  the  struggle  will 
not  have  its  over-all  religious  character  then,  as 
the  workers  take  the  power  in  the  Negro 
movement. 

Comrade  Jones  says  we  are  not,  never  have, 
and  never  will  be  separatists.  We  had  a  resolution 
in  1939  which  Comrade  Breitman  said  was  the 
guiding  line  of  the  party  for  10  years,  which  is 
essentially  a  nationalist  document  on  the  Negro 
question.  It  is  entitled  "Self-Determination  and 
the  American  Negroes."  And  it  is  organized 
around  the  concept  of  self-determination.  That 
was  the  program  adopted  by  the  1939  conven- 
tion. "It  is  not  improbable,  therefore,  that  the 
bulk  of  the  Negroes  have  absorbed  their  lesson 
far  more  profoundly  than  is  superficially  apparent 
and  that  on  their  first  political  awakening  to  the 
necessity  of  revolutionary  activity,  the  first 
political  awakening,  they  may  demand  the  right 
of  self-determination,  that  is,  the  formation  of  the 
Negro  state  in  the  South." 

The  1939  Resolution  analyzes  the  Garvey 
movement  as  representing  the  desire  for  a  Negro 
state,  and  speaks  about  the  opponents  of  the  Ne- 
gro state  as  follows:  "The  opposition  to  a  Negro 
state  comes  mainly  from  the  articulate  and  vocal 
but  small  and  weak  class  of  the  Negro  intellectu- 
als concerned  with  little  else  besides  the  gaining 
of  a  place  for  themselves  in  American  capitalist 
society,  fanatically  blind  to  its  rapid  decline." 
This  is  the  characterization  in  the  resolution  of 
the  theoreticians  of  assimilationism  who  have 
been  now  vindicated  by  the  whole  course  of  the 
Negro  struggle.  That  is  a  wrong  formulation  and 
it  has  not  been  vindicated  by  the  course  of 
events,  but  nevertheless  this  is  an  important  part 
of  our  history  and  it  is  wrong  to  say  that  it  never 
existed. 

Now,  Comrade  George  Lavan  accuses  me  of 
twisting  words  when  I  say  the  resolution  desig- 
nates the  Negroes  as  a  national  minority.  That's 
what  it  says  and  Comrade  Dan  agreed  that  it  did; 
he  said,  what  are  you  going  to  call  it  if  you 
don't? 

Comrade  George  says  that  there  is  no  such 
movement  as  I  described  as  quoted  in  the  Militant 
as  a  movement  of  Southern  women.  There's  no 
movement,  there's  no  struggle.  There  is!  The  item 


70 


in  the  Militant  is  only  one  aspect  of  it,  only  one 
facet.  There  is  a  movement  which  has  been  in 
continuous  existence  since  1930,  in  overt  struggle 
against  the  system  of  segregation. 

A  very  exceptional  book  on  the  movement  in 
the  South,  Lillian  Smith's  The  Killers  of  the  Dream, 
describes  this  organization  and  what  role  it  plays 
there.  She  speaks  about  the  Southern  women  and 
what  their  stake  in  this  struggle  is.  She  describes 
them  as  follows:  "Culturally  stunted  by  a  region 
that  still  pays  nice  rewards  to  simple  mindedness 
in  females  they  had  no  defenses  against  blandish- 
ment. The  gullied  land  of  the  South,  washed  out 
and  eroded,  matched  the  washed-out  women  of 
the  rural  South  whose  bodies  were  often  used  as 
ruthlessly  as  the  land;  who  worked  as  hard  as 
animals;  who  were  segregated  in  church,  sitting 
in  separate  pews  from  the  men;  who  were  not 
thought  fit  to  be  citizens  and  vote  until  three 
decades  ago  and  who,  in  some  states  in  the 
South,  cannot  own  property  except  in  their  hus- 
band's name.  Who  even  now  cannot  officiate  as 
ministers  in  most  of  the  churches  though  they  are 
the  breath  of  life  of  the  church." 

These  women,  she  says,  decided  to  make  a 
war  upon  their  oppression.  These  "lady  insurrec- 
tionists," she  calls  them, 

"these  ladies  went  forth  to  commit  treason  against 
Southern  tradition.  It  was  a  purely  subversive  affair 
but  as  decorously  conducted  as  an  afternoon  walk 
taken  by  the  students  of  a  female  institute.  It  started 
stealthily  in  my  mother's  day.  Shyly  these  first 
women  sneaked  down  from  their  chilly  places,  did 
their  sabotage  and  sneaked  back  up,  wrapping  inno- 
cence around  them  like  a  lace  shawl. 


"They  set  secret  time  bombs  and  went  back  to  their 
needle  work,  serenely  awaiting  the  blast.  Their  time 
bombs  consisted  of  a  secret  under-ground  propa- 
ganda movement  which  was  developed  from  mothers 
to  daughters  and  through  the  years  spreading  out 
to  encompass  vast  sections  of  the  white  female  popu- 
lation. And  so  degraded  was  the  position  of  women 
in  Southern  society  that  white  men  of  the  South 
could  not  conceive  of  their  women  having  ideas  and 
had  no  inkling  of  the  insurrection  until  it  happened. 

"The  lady  insurrectionists  gathered  together  one 
day  in  one  of  our  Southern  cities.  They  primly  called 
themselves  church  women  but  churches  were  forgot- 
ten by  everybody  when  they  spoke  their  revolution- 
ary words.  They  said  calmly  that  they  were  not 
afraid  of  being  raped  and  as  for  their  sacredness, 
they  could  take  care  of  it  for  themselves.  They  did 
not  need  chivalry  or  a  lynching  to  protect  them,  they 
did  not  want  it.  Not  only  that— they  continued  that 
they  would  personally  do  everything  in  their  power 
to  keep  any  Negro  from  being  lynched  and  further- 
more, they  squeaked  bravely,  they  had  plenty  of 
power  and  this  was  the  foundation  of  the  Associa- 
tion of  Southern  Women  Against  Lynching  in  1930." 

It  began  a  struggle  against  segregation,  as  the 
fundamental  hereditary  enemy.  They  claimed  that 
the  Lord's  Supper  was  a  holy  sacrament  which 
Christians  cannot  take  without  sacrilege  unless 
they  also  break  bread  with  fellow-men  of  color. 
They  systematically  set  out  to  break  down  one  of 
the  most  important  conventions  of  segregation 
and  engaged  in  inter-racial  feeding. 

This  organization  has  been  in  continuous 
existence  since  that  time,  has  been  active  and  has 
now  become  a  tremendous  factor  developing 
support  of  the  movement  against  segregation. 


On  Federal  Troops  in  Little  Rock 

Attachment  to  Socialist  Workers  Party  Club  Executive  [Political  Committee] 
Minutes  No.  18,  5  November  1957.  On  10  October  1957  Fraser  wrote  this  letter 
from  Seattle,  Washington  to  the  SWP  Political  Committee,  protesting  the 
Militant's  call  for  federal  troops  to  Little  Rock,  Arkansas. 


The  editorial  on  the  action  by  the  Federal 
government  in  sending  troops  to  Little  Rock, 
published  on  the  front  page  of  the  Militant  of 
September  20th,  brings  the  dispute  over  this 
question  into  sharp  focus. 

This  episode  has  posed  the  fundamental 
question  point-blank:  shall  the  struggle  in  the 
South  be  waged  in  abject  dependence  upon  the 
government,  or  independently  by  the  masses? 

The  entire  Negro  community  of  Little  Rock, 
numbering  25,000,  was  poised  and  ready  for 
action.  Their  eagerness  to  participate  in  the 
struggle  at  times  overflowed  in  dramatic  eruptions, 
as  testified  to  by  the  Negro  press.  Moreover,  this 
mass  eagerness  occurred  within  a  favorable  rela- 
tionship of  forces. 

The  Negro  middle  class  leaders  refused  the 
masses  any  part  in  the  struggle,  demanding  that 
they  cease  aspiring  to  act  and  to  accept  a  passive 
role  meekly.  Having  betrayed  the  masses'  desire 
for  action,  the  leadership  appealed  instead  to  the 
government  to  solve  the  crisis. 

The  demand  for  Federal  Troops  to  the  South 
is  revealed  in  action,  not  as  an  adjunct  to  but  as 
a  substitute  for  the  organized  action  of  the 
masses  and  is  counterposed  directly  to  it. 

The  editorial  sees  in  this  situation  a 
"Valuable  Precedent"— "For  the  use  of  federal 
troops  in  Little  Rock  constitutes  a  precedent  for 
the  Negro  people  that  the  capitalist  politicians- 
much  as  they  will  squirm  and  try  to  weasel  out 
of— will  never  be  able  to  get  away  from.  At  each 


crucial  stage  in  the  fight  for  the  enforcement  of 
the  rights  they  now  possess  on  paper,  the  Negro 
people  will  be  in  a  position  to  demand  federal 
intervention  if  they  need  it...." 

If  they  need  it?  Who  is  to  determine  if  they 
need  it?  The  editors  of  the  Militant  seem  quite 
willing  to  take  the  word  of  the  middle  class 
leadership  whether  the  Negro  people  need 
Federal  soldiers— and  this  leadership  will  continue 
to  prefer  governmental  action  to  mass  action,  as 
has  been  their  tradition. 

This  perspective  for  the  struggle  is  justified 
by  the  Militant  in  the  following  manner:  "The 
resulting  political  pressure...  can  blow  the 
Republican-Democratic  political  monopoly  sky 
high."  Such  a  formula  provides  a  political 
justification  for  continued  dependence  on  the 
government  and  for  perpetuation  of  the  policy  of 
no  organization  of  the  masses. 

Spokesmen  for  the  P.C.  convention  resolution 
have  repeatedly  claimed  that  one  of  its  central 
points  was  the  question  of  mass  action  vs. 
dependence  on  the  government.  The  editorial  in 
question,  however,  illustrates  the  contradictory 
character  of  the  resolution  which  at  one  and  the 
same  time  calls  for  a  class  struggle  policy  in  the 
Negro  movement,  but  also  endorses  parts  of  the 
consciously  collaborationist  and  anti-revolu- 
tionary program  of  the  middle  class  leadership. 

I  request  that  this  letter  be  circulated  to  the 
N.C.  as  soon  as  possible. 


71 


On  the  SWP  and  the  Vietnam  Antiwar  Movement 


From  an  unnumbered  Socialist  Workers  Party  Internal  Information  Bulletin, 
"Material  on  the  Kirk-Kaye  Split,"  dated  July  1966.  Dick  Fraser  addressed  this 
13  December  1965  letter  from  Seattle,  Washington  to  the  SWP  Political 
Committee.  In  February  1 966  he  was  censured  by  an  SWP  National  Committee 
(NC)  Plenum  for  circulating  the  letter  to  non-NC  members.  The  SWP  leadership 
then  began  an  "investigation"  of  the  Kirk-Kaye  tendency,  precipitating  its  split 
from  the  SWP  in  April  1966. 


The  policy  of  the  PC  in  the  antiwar  move- 
ment had  its  final  result  at  the  Thanksgiving  Con- 
ference in  Washington.  Here  the  party  and  youth 
carried  on  an  unprincipled,  disruptive  and  politi- 
cally reformist  struggle  against  the  entire  left 
wing  of  the  antiwar  movement.  They  disrupted 
the  conference  around  tertiary  organizational 
demands  and  ended  in  isolation  and  national  dis- 
grace. They  established  an  indelible  and  deserved 
record  for  political  conservatism  and  dead-end 
factionalism.  They  also  emerged  as  the  only 
tendency  present  able  to  ignore  and  snub  the  civil 
rights  movement. 

This  episode  constitutes  a  political  catas- 
trophe for  the  SWP  of  a  magnitude  never  before 
experienced  by  American  Trotskyism.  If  immediate 
steps  are  not  taken  to  counteract  the  effect  of  this 
performance,  the  reaction  to  it  will  render  the 
party  and  youth  as  contemptible  among  honest 
militants  as  was  the  CP  during  its  worst  days. 
This  can  be  prevented  only  by  an  abrupt  change 
of  policy  and  a  public  repudiation  of  the  course 
followed  by  the  party  and  youth  in  the  antiwar 
movement  during  the  past  three  months. 

The  party  and  the  youth  entered  the  con- 
ference armed  with  two  "principles": 

1.  To  imprison  the  antiwar  movement  in  the 
U.S.  in  the  single  issue  of  peace  in  Vietnam. 

2.  To  manufacture  a  centralized  national 
membership  organization  of  the  independent 
committees  on  a  Peace  Only  program,  to  super- 
sede the  present  united  front  arrangement. 

I  contend  that  such  "principles"  are  alien  to 
revolutionary  program  and  tactically  impossible 
to  implement  given  the  actual  composition  and 
mood  of  the  living  antiwar  movement. 

I.  The  Programmatic  Problem 

1.  Can  the  Peace  Movement  Stop  the  War? 

The   policy  of  the   PC   is   based   upon   an 


unproved  and  unfounded  assumption  that  the  war 
can  be  stopped  by  mass  peace  pressure  on  the 
government.  This  is  an  illusion  unworthy  of 
revolutionists. 

The  Militant  has  been  saturated  with  this  line 
for  many  weeks.  Comrade  Halstead's  articles  con- 
stantly refer  to  the  "millions  of  lives"  which  are 
at  stake  in  the  decision  of  the  peace  movement 
on  the  "single"  versus  the  "multi-issue"  question. 

The  Nov.  29  Militant  editorial  of  "The  Anti- 
war Conference"  gives  the  line  fairly  clearly.  "The 
war  in  Vietnam  cannot  be  ended  solely  by  the 
activities  of  local  committees.  A  powerful  national 
movement  will  have  to  be  built." 

This  concept  is  even  more  emphatically  stated 
in  a  fantasy  called  "A  Draft  Perspective  for  the 
Antiwar  Movement."  After  advocating  the  single- 
issue-national-membership-organization  policy, 
the  Draft  concludes:  "We  are  convinced  that  an 
organization  can  be  built  in  this  country  on  the 
basis  of  the  program  outlined  above,  that  can  be 
the  decisive  factor  in  bringing  an  end  to  the 
genocidal  war  in  Vietnam." 

Comrade  Britton,  in  a  youth  communication, 
describes  this  Draft  as  one  "passed  by  the 
Washington  Heights  CEWV,  an  upper  Manhattan 
community-based  committee  in  collaboration  with 
individuals,  mainly  our  comrades,  in  the  other 
New  York  committees  listed.  It  has  been  circu- 
lated in  the  New  York  antiwar  movement  to  serve 
primarily  an  education  function  in  preparation  for 
the  Washington  convention.... Hopefully,  the 
representatives  at  the  November  18  meeting  will 
approve  this  statement  or  a  modified  version  of 
it...." 

The  PC,  having  utterly  failed  to  make  a 
general  analysis  of  the  politico-economic 
conjuncture  for  the  SWP  convention,  has  the 
totally  false  impression  that  the  capitalist  class 
has  no  fundamental  stake  in  this  war,  and  would 


72 


73 


pull  out  of  it  in  response  to  a  little  more  pressure. 

While  it  is  true  that  some  of  the  lackey- 
columnists  close  to  the  administration  are  as- 
signed to  give  that  impression,  it  is  only  a  ruse. 
The  ruling  class  is  desperately  attempting  to 
create  large  new  investment  opportunities  and 
views  South  Vietnam  as  a  key  to  the  exploitation 
of  East  Asia  and  India.  Furthermore,  it  regards 
Vietnam  as  essential  to  its  preparations  for  an 
eventual  war  with  China. 

This  war  is  fundamental  to  the  economic  and 
political  interest  of  U.S.  capitalism.  No  powerful 
national  "Withdraw  the  Troops"  movement  alone 
can  stop  this  war. 

2.  How  Can  the  War  Be  Ended? 

The  Militant  says,  "Bring  the  GIs  Home."  But 
this  only  raises  another  question — how?  The  party 
and  youth  line  is  that  an  enlarged  peace 
movement  can  do  it  by  nationally  directed 
pressure  and  agitation. 

In  reality,  a  more  tangible  and  quicker 
possibility  for  the  withdrawal  of  U.S.  armed 
forces  from  Vietnam  could  be  accomplished  if  the 
National  Liberation  Front  can  drive  them  into  the 
China  Sea.  This  is  the  active  revolutionary 
solution  to  the  question.  But  there  is  no  hint  of 
recognition  in  our  literature  that  this  is  the  most 
favorable  alternative. 

The  party  and  youth  leave  it  to  others  who 
are  bolder  to  be  partisans  of  the  NLF,  others  who 
may  lack  something  in  program,  theory  or  expe- 
rience, but  make  up  for  it  in  the  revolutionary 
spirit  of  solidarity  so  dismally  absent  from  the 
pages  of  the  Militant. 

It  is  doubtful  that  this  war  can  be  ended  on 
domestic  initiative  by  anything  else  than  the 
proletarian  revolution.  However,  short  of  such  a 
basic  explosion,  the  only  force  on  U.S.  soil 
capable  of  pressuring  the  capitalist  government 
out  of  Vietnam  is  the  proletariat,  in  the  course  of 
its  prosecution  of  the  class  struggle.  To  promise 
and  advocate  anything  else  is  to  sow  an 
opportunist  illusion. 

The  Negro  movement  represents  that  section 
of  the  proletariat  which  is  presently  in  motion 
and  has  the  initiative.  The  virile  youth  movement 
linking  up  with  the  Negro  movement  would 
together  comprise  a  formidable  force,  agitating 
sections  of  the  proletariat  into  action. 

Out  of  this  process  will  emerge  a  new  fused 
and  regrouped  revolutionary  party  composed  of 
radicals  from  the  socialist,  antiwar,  and  civil 
rights  vanguard  organizations.  The  appearance 


and  maturingof  this  development — the  process  of 
a  fused  vanguard  stimulating  the  working  class 
into  struggle  at  the  point  of  production — are  the 
only  political  realities  that  Johnson  &  Co.  can 
respect. 

No  matter  how  radical  the  slogans  and  broad 
the  composition  of  the  peace  movement,  it  will  be 
politically  ineffective  until  it  links  with  the  Negro 
radicals  and  the  working  class.  To  a  Trotskyist, 
under  capitalism,  "There  Is  No  Peace!" 

3.  Towards  Coalition  Politics 

If  a  "properly  organized"  peace  movement 
can  stop  a  war,  then  we  have  been  erroneously 
fighting  Stalinism  and  pacifism  on  this  issue  for 
30  years.  And  if  we  were  correct  then,  and  are 
still  correct  now  with  the  new  "tactical"  line 
because  times  have  changed,  then  the  PC  is 
indeed  guilty  of  the  old  revisionist  habit  of 
reversing  a  principle  because  of  supposed  tactical 
necessity. 

This  "tactical"  excitement  is  a  new  shocker  in 
SWP  practices.  Has  the  party  forgotten  that  the 
tenacity  with  which  previous  peace  movements 
clung  to  reformism  was  rooted  in  part  in  the 
liberal-Stalinist  compulsion  to  isolate  war  and 
peace  from  the  other  great  social  problems?  And 
don't  they  similarly  isolate  civil  rights  from  the 
questions  of  war  and  peace,  poverty,  imperialism? 

The  upshot  of  this  traditional  limitation  of 
the  antiwar  movement  to  peace  only  and  the  civil 
rights  movement  to  civil  rights  only  has  been  the 
incarceration  of  both  movements  inside  the  Dem- 
ocratic Party,  for  only  the  interrelation  of  all  the 
great  social  problems  makes  it  possible  to  identify 
capitalism  as  the  cause  of  any  of  them  and  lay  the 
groundwork  for  independentanti-capitalist  polit- 
ical action. 

Now  that  for  the  first  time  in  the  modern  era, 
militant  antiwar  youth  and  militant  southern  Ne- 
groes are  seeking  to  broaden  the  concept  and 
scope  of  both  the  antiwar  and  civil  rights  move- 
ments by  integrating  their  aims  and  directing  an 
appeal  to  the  proletariat,  the  party  and  youth 
claim  that  such  youth  are  sectarian  splitters  of 
the  united  peace  front! 

The  capitalist  class  is  profoundly  fearful  of 
the  possibility  of  the  Negro  movement  identifying 
itself  with  the  colonial  revolution  and  linking  up 
with  the  antiwar  movement  around  the  issue  of 
Vietnam.  Every  time  a  Negro  leader  opens  his 
mouth  on  Vietnam  or  colonialism,  the  entire  capi- 
talist press  rakes  him  over  the  coals  with  a  line 


74 


quite  similar  to  that  of  the  party  and  youth:  "It's 
all  right  for  Negroes  to  build  their  own  movement 
on  their  own  grievances,  but  you  only  injure  the 
cause  of  civil  rights  by  taking  positions  on  other 
social  problems,  because  that  will  alienate  your 
supporters." 

What  they  mean  is  that  a  break  from  the 
Democratic  or  Republican  parties  would  be  the 
next  logical  step  and  this  must  be  prevented  at 
all  costs. 

Larry  Laughlin,  one  of  the  prominent  co- 
chairmen  of  the  militant  Berkeley  VDC  [Vietnam 
Defense  Committee],  said  in  his  speech  to  the 
Seattle  committee  three  weeks  ago:  "We  are  disil- 
lusioned with  protest.  We  are  going  to  enter  poli- 
tics. We  are  going  to  run  radical  candidates  on 
the  twin  issues  of  war  and  civil  rights.  We  plan  a 
frontal  attack  on  the  Democratic  Party  which  is 
calculated  to  break  it  up.  We  consider  it  our  duty 
to  shake-up  the  labor  movement  to  a  realization 
of  labor's  responsibilities." 

It  is  quite  true  that  this  is  not  the  whole 
story,  that  there  is  a  lot  of  confusion  about  what 
a  "frontal  attack  on  the  Democratic  Party"  means, 
and  that  for  many  it  includes  running  candidates 
in  the  Democratic  primaries.  And,  to  be  sure, 
danger  of  coalition  politics  exists.  However,  the 
proposed  treatment  prescribed  by  the  party  and 
youth  does  nothing  to  counteract  coalition 
politics. 

The  party  and  youth  claim  that  if  we  permit 
issues  other  than  peace  to  enter  into  the  present 
movement  the  Stalinists  will  utilize  the  circum- 
stances to  take  the  movement  into  the  Democratic 
Party.  This  argument  not  only  stands  the  thing  on 
its  head,  but  fails  to  grapple  with  the  reality. 

In  the  first  place,  the  antiwar  movement  is 
going  into  politics  whether  we  like  it  or  not,  and 
its  only  chance  to  avoid  the  trap  of  people's 
frontism  is  not  to  avoid  politics,  but  precisely  to 
relate  the  war  question  to  the  other  social 
problems  and  create  an  over-all  anti-capitalist 
political  philosophy. 

The  newly  radicalized  elements,  many  of 
them  politically  naive,  are  still  people  moving 
rapidly  leftward  who  desperately  require  the 
intervention  of  revolutionary  socialists  on  the  big 
political  questions  to  aid  their  development. 

In  so  far  as  the  youth  movement  is  successful 
in  confining  the  movement  to  peace  only,  it  will 
insure  a  strong  development  of  people's  frontism, 
because  a  movement  which  is  orientated  ex- 
clusively to  the  peace  issue  inevitably  winds  up 
supporting  "peace"  Democrats. 


II.  Tactics  and  Organization  Forms 

1.  A  Radical  Peace  Movement  and  a  Conservative 
Youth  Movement 

The  "single"  vs  "multi-issue"  position  of  the 
party  and  youth  is  not  only  wrong  politically,  but 
tactically  blind,  revealing  a  complete  lack  of 
knowledge  of  the  actual  political  condition  of  the 
movement,  which  is  far  more  sophisticated  and 
advanced  than  the  party  and  youth  comprehend. 

The  party  and  youth  have  now  been  active  in 
this  movement  for  a  few  months,  and  in  some 
cases  a  few  weeks.  Yet  they  presume  to  dictate  to 
the  movement  a  scheme  for  stopping  the  war 
which  has  no  plausible  chance  for  success  and 
which  the  antiwar  militants  had  two  years  ago, 
but  have  now  discarded,  realizing  that  they  must 
integrate  the  antiwar  movement  with  the  colonial 
revolution,  the  Negro  struggle,  economic  prob- 
lems of  the  working  class — in  short,  make  a  class- 
struggle  internationalist  movement  of  it.  The 
party  and  youth  demand  that  they  return  to  their 
political  infancy  of  two  years  ago  and  wait  for  the 
masses  to  catch  up. 

Those  who  have  led  the  antiwar  movement 
during  the  past  two  years  in  protest  marches  and 
demonstrations  are  nowcomingto  the  realization 
that  the  White  House  and  Pentagon  are  impervi- 
ous to  any  amount  of  protest  or  public  opinion, 
intend  to  stay  in  Vietnam  until  every  square  foot 
of  soil  has  been  churned  by  bombs,  every  leaf  of 
foliage  laid  to  waste  and  every  man,  woman  and 
child  murdered,  if  necessary.  The  ruling  class  is 
clearly  prepared  to  go  to  any  lengths  of  domestic 
policing  and  terror  to  prevent  obstruction  of  the 
war.  The  antiwar  militants  now  understand  that 
something  more  basic  than  even  powerful  single- 
issue  routine  protest  must  be  organized. 

The  Washington  Conference  represented  ob- 
jectively an  attempt  by  newly  radicalized  youth 
to  begin  reaching  general  anti-capitalist  conclu- 
sions derived  from  the  past  two  years  of  protest. 
Even  the  newest  CEWVs  [Committee  to  End  the 
War  in  Vietnam]  are  ripe  for  revolutionary  con- 
clusions. The  rapid  leftward  development  of  large 
sections  of  this  movement  clearly  opened  up  the 
perspective  for  the  creation  of  a  mass  revolu- 
tionary youth  movement  in  this  country. 

The  main  and  only  responsibility  of  the  revo- 
lutionary socialists  at  this  conference  was  to  at- 
tempt to  broaden  and  deepen  and  generalize  the 
anti-capitalist  sentiments — to  raise  the  political 
level  of  the  movement. 

This  task  was  undertaken  by  the  left  wing  of 


75 


SDS  [Students  for  a  Democratic  Society],  PL  [Pro- 
gressive Labor  Party],  the  May  2nd  Movement 
and  other  non-Trotskyist  currents,  but  especially 
by  the  Spartacist  and  Bulletin  forces.  Our  youth 
movement  resisted  and  disrupted  the  attempts  to 
draw  general  radical,  socialistic  conclusions,  and 
became  in  fact  the  right  wing  of  the  conference, 
in  objective  programmatic  alliance  with  the 
established  peace  addicts  on  the  "Peace  Only" 
issue,  and  no  amount  of  compensatory  righteous- 
ness over  the  "withdrawal"  versus  "negotiate" 
issue  can  obscure  this  fact. 

The  party  and  youth  are  thoroughly  isolated 
in  their  irrational  resistance  to  the  universal 
desire  among  militant  sectors  of  the  antiwar 
movement  to  reach  out  to  the  civil  rights  move- 
ment. A  high  point  of  the  convention  was  the 
powerful  and  militant  plea  of  the  delegation  from 
the  Mississippi  Freedom  Democratic  Party  for  a 
recognition  of  the  unity  of  purpose  between  the 
antiwar  movement  and  the  civil  rights  movement. 
Ignoring  this  plea  the  SWP  rejected  this  alliance 
for  supposed  "tactical"  considerations,  but  it  is 
clear  that  the  chief  reason  is  the  party  position  on 
black  nationalism,  i.e.,  Negroes  should  keep  their 
movement  separate  from  whites,  and  Negro  goals 
are  not  yet  the  business  of  the  peace  movement. 

2.  The  Unity  Splitters 

The  party  and  youth  under  the  hypocritical 
slogan  of  "unity"  of  the  peace  movement  raised 
the  demand  for  a  single  membership  organization 
as  the  central  vehicle  for  the  struggle  against  the 
war  in  Vietnam.  This  demand  proved  to  be  the 
vehicle  to  amaze,  appall,  demoralize  and  disrupt 
the  conference. 

Irrespective  of  the  merits  of  the  proposal,  the 
experience  of  the  previous  weekend  at  the  Bay 
Area  Conference  demonstrated  conclusively  that 
this  demand  was  a  divisive  rather  than  a  unifying 
issue,  and  that  the  main  militant  tendencies  in  the 
antiwar  movement  would  not  go  along  with  it 
under  any  circumstances.  To  continue  to  press 
this  issue  at  the  Washington  Conference  indicated 
a  preconceived  plan  on  the  part  of  the  party  and 
youth  to  divide  and  splinter  the  movement  while 
shouting  "unity." 

This  organizational  demand  cannot  find 
acceptance.  It  is  an  organizational  gimmick  which 
would  tend  to  freeze  part  of  the  movement  at  the 
present  stage  and  force  other  sections  back  to  a 
previous  stage  of  development.  The  tactical  stu- 
pidity of  this  proposal  for  a  centralized  national 
organization  stems  from  its  unreality;  it  is  totally 


out  of  tune  with  the  mood  of  the  newly  radi- 
calized youth  who  have  a  healthy  mistrust  of 
centralized  organizations  and  of  becoming 
over-concerned  with  problems  of  organizational 
structure,  except  to  maintain  some  local  auton- 
omy—until they  have  found  out  for  sure  where 
they  are  going  politically. 

To  make  matters  worse,  the  proposal  itself  is 
entirely  without  objective  political  merit  because 
it  is  maneuveristic  and  violates  the  principle  of 
the  united  front,  the  cornerstone  of  our  mass 
work. 

3.  The  United  Front 

As  against  Stalinist  attempts  to  subject  in- 
dependent organizations  to  a  single  minimum  is- 
sue or  program,  or  all  embracing  organization, 
Trotsky  enunciated  over  and  over  again  the 
principle  of  the  united  front  of  different  organiza- 
tions, which  were  free  to  maintain  their  autono- 
my and  independence.  To  subordinate  independ- 
ent organizations  to  a  single  minimum  program 
and  permanent  organization  is  people's  frontism. 

A  stated  motivation  of  the  policy  of  a  new 
peace-only  national  membership  organization  is 
the  aim  of  cutting  off  the  development  of  SDS  in 
a  socialist  direction. 

The  reality  of  antiwar  politics  is  that  it  has 
pushed  the  left  wing  of  the  SDS  into  the  forefront 
of  socialist  politics.  The  left  wing  of  SDS  today 
represents  the  most  important,  largest  and  most 
militant  radical  youth  movement  in  the  U.S.,  rap- 
idly moving  towards  an  open  socialist  program. 

Our  youth  movement,  an  essentially  conser- 
vative organization,  instead  of  welcoming  this 
development  and  encouraging  it,  views  it  com- 
petitively with  alarm  and  hostility.  They  fear  it 
and  are  jealous  of  it.  Feeling  that  they  do  not 
have  the  ideological  or  political  equipment  to 
compete  with  it,  they  want  to  maneuver  it  out  of 
existence.  Our  youth  say,  in  effect,  to  the  SDS, 
"Socialism  is  not  your  business— you  are  only 
rightwing  peaceniks.  Dissolve  yourselves  in  a 
single  issue  peace  movement.  You  can  be  useful 
there.  But  leave  socialism  to  our  movement, 
which  is  ordained  to  be  the  only  young  socialist 
organization  in  the  country." 

The  approach  of  the  youth  and  party  leaders 
to  the  SDS  and  other  leftward  developing  cur- 
rents has  a  childish-sectarian  nature  not  seen  in 
the  radical  movement  for  decades,  but  returning 
now  with  a  vengeance. 

At  the  Washington  Conference,  the  National 
Coordinating  Committee  issued  proposals  which 


76 


contained  the  essence  of  the  principle  of  the 
united  front.  As  opposed  to  this,  the  party  and 
youth  exploded  a  frantic  4-day  factional  assault 
around  the  Stalinistic  demand  for  a  national 
membership  organization,  on  the  spurious 
grounds  that  they  represented  the  "masses"  or  the 
"independents." 

The  NCC,  understandably  indignant  but  anx- 
ious to  prevent  a  split,  revised  its  proposals 
closely  in  accordance  with  the  specific  demands 
of  the  youth  movement,  retaining  only  the  basic 
unity  front  structure  rather  than  the  totally  un- 
acceptable national  membership  organization  for 
independents. 

However,  the  party  and  youth  forces  were  ar- 
rogantly deaf  to  the  concessions  of  the  NCC  and 
blindly  pressed  on  towards  virtual  split.  A  new 
policy  of  attack,  raid  and  the  hell-with-everyone- 
else  has  replaced  Trotsky's  united  front  for  action. 

4.  Defeat 

The  party  and  youth  went  into  the  conference 
with  very  little  real  knowledge  of  the  composi- 
tion, political  character  or  mood  of  the  antiwar 
movement.  They  were  steeped  in  fanciful  pre- 
conception and  errors,  but  they  had  the  oppor- 
tunity to  learn  something  about  the  real  move- 
ment. They  rejected  the  chance.  They  didn't  even 
attend  the  conference  proper,  except  when  and 
where  their  petty  organizational  proposal  could 
be  pushed.  The  great  moments,  the  political  dis- 
cussions and  mood,  the  discussion  in  the  various 
workshops,  the  evidence  of  leftward  trends,  all 
this  they  missed,  as  they  raced  around  organizing 
essentially  a  counter-conference  which  in  the  end 
turned  out  to  encompass  only  themselves  and  a 
few  bewildered  followers. 

All  that  the  party  and  youth  participants  can 
report  about  the  Washington  Conference  is  what 
was  done  and  said  in  their  various  sectarian 
caucuses. 

When  one  after  another  of  their  previous 
allies  publicly  dissociated  themselves  from  our 
youth  movement  and  denounced  it,  the  party  and 
youth  forces  were  soundly  defeated.  Refusing  to 
abide  by  majority  decision  they  convoked  a  pre- 
planned dismal  rump  convention  which  set  a  goal 
of  creating  the  new  organization  they  had  been 
unable  to  sell  at  the  conference.  Like  the  Stalin- 
ists of  by-gone  days,  our  troops  incurred  the 
wrath  of  an  originally  friendly  mass  movement 
and  managed  only  to  capture  themselves.  The 
disgrace  is  now  part  of  the  SWP's  public  record. 


III.  Significance 

1.  Intervention  and  the  "Holding  Operation" 

The  young  activists  pledged  at  the  last  SWP 
convention  that  they  would  cease  their  sectarian, 
do-nothing,  abstentionist  policy.  The  various  mi- 
norities urged  them  to  intervene  in  the  living 
movement— to  intervene  ideologically  and 
politically. 

The  present  disruptive  organizational  "inter- 
vention" is  the  diametric  opposite  of  the  political 
intervention  needed,  and  merely  constitutes  an- 
other form  of  the  "holding  operation"  wherein  all 
non-trade-unionistic  areas  of  struggle  are  re- 
garded as  historically  unimportant  and  thereby 
fair  game  for  contemptuous  raids  and  any  old 
policy. 

2.  The  Political  Direction  of  the  Present  Current 

What  is  revealed  in  this  episode  is  a  rapid 
movement  towards  reformism  by  the  youth  lead- 
ership. The  youth  movement  is  an  essentially 
petty-bourgeois  formation  without  serious  con- 
nection with  the  working  class  either  theoretically 
through  Marxism  or  directly  through  contact  or 
organization.  It  has  now  broken  out  of  its  pre- 
carious condition  of  total  isolation  and  insulation 
from  the  mass  movements  of  its  time,  and  come 
into  contact  with  the  essentially  middle  class 
antiwar  movement.  Its  conservatism  on  the  draft 
question,  its  reluctance  to  become  the  champions 
of  the  NLF,  its  refusal  to  face  programmatic 
questions  all  demonstrate  an  affinity  with  the 
more  conservative  layers  of  the  peace  movement. 

Sensitivity  to  the  conservative  elements  of  a 
middle  class  movement  has  apparently  impelled 
the  youth  group  itself  in  a  rightward  direction 
with  great  speed,  at  the  very  time  that  the  major 
sectors  of  the  movement  are  moving  rapidly 
leftward. 

Inasmuch  as  the  youth  nationally  represents 
the  principal  base  of  the  party,  the  velocity  of  this 
petty-bourgeois,  essentially  reformist,  current 
tends  to  sweep  the  party  along  with  it. 

3.  What  Is  the  Source  of  Policy? 

The  policies  which  led  to  the  Thanksgiving 
disaster  were  the  subject  neither  of  SWP  conven- 
tion debates  nor  documents,  and  discussion  can- 
not be  summarily  refused  because  the  issues  were 
"decided  by  the  convention."  Furthermore,  the 
peace  movement  policy  has  not  been  recorded  in 
any  comprehensive  form  in  any  PC  minutes.  The 
source  of  policy  in  this  matter  is  not  precisely  clear. 


11 


On  the  contrary,  during  Comrade  Dobbs'  tour 
stop  in  Seattle,  we  reported  our  local  activity  and 
line  in  the  antiwar  movement  (which  have,  inci- 
dentally, met  with  considerable  success),  in  both 
public  and  closed  branch  discussions.  We  stated 
that  our  emphasis  has  been  the  broad  politicaliza- 
tion  of  the  movement  towards  revolutionary  so- 
cialism, connecting  it  with  the  civil  rights 
movement,  the  colonial  revolution,  and  seeking 
a  relationship  with  the  proletariat. 

Comrade  Dobbs  indicated  no  point  of  dis- 
agreement with  this  policy  whatsoever,  and  it 
appeared  that  our  local  approach  corresponded 
to  the  majority  decision  of  the  convention:  to 
politicalize  and  radicalize  the  antiwar  movement. 
Yet  two  days  after  Comrade  Dobbs'  visit,  the 
youth  organizer  received  a  letter  from  the  youth 
national  office  that  included  a  criticism  of  local 
work  for  being  against  the  "national  policy"  of 
peace  only. 

What  evidently  happened  in  the  party  was 
that  some  branches  were  actually  mobilized  as 
factions  in  the  local  peace  organizations  before 
the  rest  of  the  party— or  Seattle  alone!— was  in- 
formed of  the  line. 

Who  is  responsible  for  our  single-issue- 
national-membership  organization  program?  The 
NC  as  a  whole  has  a  right  to  know. 

The  present  crisis  of  policy  is  sufficiently 
acute  to  warrant  an  immediate  special  plenum  of 
the  NC  to  begin  to  extricate  the  party,  and  if 
possible  the  youth  from  a  dangerous  drift  in  both 
organizations. 

I  request  an  immediate  poll  of  the  NC  on  the 
holding  of  a  special  January  plenum. 

If  the  PC  has  any  inclination  to  begin  un- 
doing the  momentous  harm  that  has  been  done 


both  to  the  party  and  youth  and  to  the  antiwar 
movement,  I  believe  it  should  adopt  the  following 
emergency  propositions: 

1.  To  require  the  national  leaders  of  the 
youth  to  disband  their  National  Caucus  of  Inde- 
pendent Vietnam  Committees  to  set  up  a  new 
national  organization. 

2.  To  issue  directives  to  all  SWP  branches  to 
do  everything  in  their  power  to  prevent  the  youth 
from  carrying  out  its  threat  to  begin  to  promote 
its  national  organization  in  the  local  Vietnam 
committees,  a  threat,  which  if  carried  out,  will 
plunge  these  committees  into  turmoil  on  subordi- 
nate organizational  questions  and  result  only  in 
the  deeper  isolation  and  disgrace  of  the  youth, 
the  weakening  of  the  committees,  and  an  open 
door  for  the  Du  Bois  clubs  to  leadership  of  the 
antiwar  movement. 

3.  To  instruct  all  branches  contemplating  or 
executing  disciplinary  measures  against  comrades 
as  a  result  of  this  situation,  to  hold  such  actions 
in  abeyance  until  the  whole  situation  has  been 
reviewed  by  the  party. 

I  am  sending  under  separate  cover,  the  min- 
utes of  an  all-night  meeting  of  the  delegates  from 
the  South  to  the  Washington  Conference  which 
are  essential  reading  material  for  all  NC  members. 
The  occasion  for  the  meeting  was  as  follows:  the 
delegates  from  the  South  were  bewildered  by  the 
political  chaos  created  largely  by  the  party  and 
youth  organizational  program.  Many  wanted  to 
leave  for  home.  An  all-night  meeting  was  held  at 
which  Staughton  Lynd  was  assigned  by  the  NCC 
to  attempt  to  get  them  to  stay  on. 

Although  some  NC  members  may  have  had 
access  to  this  document,  I  think  it  should  be  sent 
out  to  all  members. 


Why  We  Left  the  Socialist  Workers  Party 


From  an  undated  pamphlet  issued  by  the  Freedom  Socialist  Party.  Richard  Fraser 
co-signed  this  June  1966  document  with  Clara  Kaye,  Frank  Krasnowsky,  David 
Dreiser  and  Waymon  Ware. 


On  behalf  of  the  former  Seattle  Branch  of  the 
Socialist  Workers  Party,  and  other  SWPers  who 
supported  the  Marxist  evaluation  of  the  Negro 
Question  developed  by  Richard  Kirk,  we  present 
this  statement  explaining  why  we  left  the  SWP— 
that  party  to  which  most  of  us  have  devoted  our 
entire  lives  since  our  youth. 

Origin  of  the  Kirk-Kaye  Tendency 

Our  political  group,  known  within  the  SWP 
as  the  Kirk-Kaye  tendency,  was  formalized  at  the 
1957  convention  of  the  party,  when  we  opposed 
the  unprincipled  adaptation  of  the  SWP  to  the 
pacifist-reformist  leadership  of  the  Negro  strug- 
gle. Adulation  of  Dr.  King  replaced  a  revolution- 
ary approach  to  the  question  within  the  party, 
and  heralded  a  process  of  degeneration  which 
reached  a  decisive  stage  at  the  1963  national 
convention  of  the  party. 

In  that  year,  the  SWP  proclaimed  a  boycott 
of  the  southern  struggle;  condemned  leftward- 
moving  SNCC  as  "reformist/integrationist,"  and 
turned  toward  Elijah  Muhammad  and  the  Black 
Muslims  as  the  "most  dynamic"  section  of  the 
Negro  movement. 

In  regard  to  other  areas  of  the  class  struggle, 
the  1963  convention  rejected  the  perspective  of 
socialist  regroupment  and  deepened  its  hostility 
towards  all  the  new  leftward-moving  organiza- 
tions on  the  political  scene;  the  perspective  of 
political  revolution  in  China  was  reaffirmed;  party 
organizational  procedures  were  formally  "tight- 
ened up"  while  an  ongoing  purge  of  critics  of  the 
leadership  was  accelerated. 

Our  tendency  opposed  this  course.  We  partic- 
ularly resisted  the  slanderous  identification  of  the 
southern  militants  with  "tokenism,"  and  the  all- 
out  support  of  Negro  separatism. 

Our  counter-resolution  to  the  convention, 
"Revolutionary  Integration,"  called  on  the  SWP  to 
permit  its  Negro  cadre  to  intervene  in  the  living 
struggle  for  equality  with  a  Marxist  program.  We 
developed  our  thesis  that  the  Negro  movement  for 


equality  is  a  unique  and  central  phenomenon  of 
the  class  struggle  in  the  United  States,  integrally 
connected  with  the  proletarian  struggle  for 
socialism. 

The  SWP  Espouses  "Black  Separatism" 

The  SWP  leadership  rejected  the  interconnec- 
tion of  the  Freedom  Now  and  socialist  move- 
ments. The  ease  with  which  the  SWP  slid  over 
from  adaptation  to  Rev.  King  to  glorification  of 
Mr.  Muhammad  expressed  the  basically  false 
theory— inherited  from  the  Communist  Party— that 
the  Negro  Question  in  the  U.S.  is  only  a  variation 
of  the  National  Question  in  Eastern  Europe. 

This  theory  maintains  that  the  Negro  problem 
can  be  solved  by  "self-determination"  and  racial 
separation.  Thus,  all  policy  problems  of  the  Negro 
movement  can  be  solved  without  strenuous  analy- 
sis and  thought,  for  the  SWP  leadership  says  in 
effect  that  whatever  the  Negro  leadership  does  is 
good  enough  for  the  Negroes  and  good  enough 
for  the  SWP  because  whatever  policy  is  most 
prominent  at  any  stage  has  been  "self- 
determined." 

The  SWP's  confusion  of  the  mood  of  black 
nationalism  with  the  politics  of  separatism  bore 
bitter  fruit  when  Malcolm  X  engineered  a  split  in 
the  Black  Muslims.  Malcolm  was  clearly  oriented 
toward  combining  the  ghetto  struggle  with  the 
southern  movement  and  with  socialism.  He  de- 
nounced the  Muslims  for  their  basically  reac- 
tionary character,  and  consequently  felt  the  wrath 
of  Mr.  Muhammad's  goons.  The  SWP,  supporting 
Muslim  unity,  was  caught  in  its  own  trap.  It 
became  both  the  supporter  of  Malcolm  and  the 
defender  of  his  enemy  and  probable  murderer. 

The  SWP,  now  discredited  in  the  Negro  com- 
munity, presents  the  ludicrous  spectacle  of  an  all- 
white  party  with  a  black  nationalist  program. 

Our  Perspective  on  the 
Unfolding  American  Revolution 

The  logic  of  the  SWP's  position  on  the  Negro 


78 


79 


struggle  led  to  a  de  facto  isolation  of  the  party 
from  the  struggle,  for  black  nationalism  itself 
stands  aside  from  the  main  thrust  of  the  Negro 
struggle— the  fight  against  segregation.  We  now 
felt  impelled  to  publish  within  the  party  an 
analysis  of  the  basic  reasons  for  the  party's 
sectarianism  on  this  and  other  vital  questions. 

Since  1957,  we  had  responded  to  severe 
changes  occurring  in  the  party  program  by  for- 
mulating our  own  position  on  a  number  of 
domestic  and  international  issues.  We  believed 
that  the  party  was  departing  from  the  dynamic 
course  dictated  by  the  spirit  and  letter  of 
Leninism  and  Trotskyism,  and  that  it  was 
stagnating  into  conservatism. 

In  what  proved  to  be  a  vain  effort  to  arrest 
this  general  drift,  we  submitted  to  the  1965 
national  convention  an  extensive  Political  Res- 
olution dealing  with  the  current  stage  of  the  crisis 
of  U.S.  imperialism  and  the  consequent  strategy 
and  tactics  needed  for  the  realization  of  our  rev- 
olution. We  sought  to  orient  the  party  toward  the 
Negro  struggle  as  the  crux  of  the  American  Revo- 
lution, and  toward  China  as  the  key  to  the  colo- 
nial revolution  and  the  major  policy-problem  of 
the  international  revolutionary  movement.  The 
Resolution  also  called  attention  to  the  essentially 
anti-capitalist  nature  of  the  struggle  of  women 
and  youth  today,  and  concluded  that  the  road  to 
the  American  Revolution  did  not  lie  directly 
through  the  trade  union  movement,  but  followed 
the  course  of  the  struggles  of  the  most  oppressed 
wherever  they  broke  out.  We  said  it  was  the  des- 
tiny of  these  struggles  outside  the  labor  move- 
ment to  become  the  vitalizing  currents  that  would 
eventually  move  the  labor  movement  and  become 
the  vanguard  of  the  revolutionary  movement  as 
a  whole. 

We  called  for  a  commitment  to  the  struggles 
of  women  under  capitalism,  and  for  the  formation 
of  a  truly  independent  revolutionary  youth 
movement. 

The  SWP  Becomes  Monolithic 

The  convention  rejected  our  perspective  and 
tactics.  Indeed,  rank  and  file  consideration  of  our 
Resolution  was  virtually  impossible  as  the  long- 
honored  internal  democracy  of  the  party  had  by 
then  been  destroyed  by  a  protracted  "tightening 
up"  campaign.  The  majority  was  hostile  to  all 
criticism  and  any  new  proposals  emanating  from 
outside  the  leadership.  The  proletarian  principle 
of  minority  representation  on  all  leading  bodies 
was  abandoned  and  the  very  right  of  factions  to 


exist  was  denied  in  a  new  Organizational  Reso- 
lution submitted  by  the  leadership  and  adopted 
by  the  convention. 

The  majority  simply  refused  to  debate  the 
issues  in  dispute  and  discussion  was  effectively 
proscribed.  Instead,  we  were  threatened  and 
denounced  over  local  administrative  practices. 
This  type  of  unprincipled  politics  was  fast 
becoming  characteristic  of  the  party  leadership. 

We  concluded  from  this  experience  that  the 
SWP  had  become  a  doctrinaire  party,  mired  in  a 
"holding  operation,"  i.e.,  a  prolonged  state  of 
suspension  based  on  the  assumption  that  nothing 
significant  can  happen  until  the  revival  of  the 
trade  unions  and  the  emergence  of  a  Labor  Party. 
The  SWP  was  ossifying  around  conjunctural  eval- 
uations of  25  years  ago,  and  neither  changes  in 
national  or  world  conditions,  the  isolation  and 
disasters  resulting  from  its  own  mistakes,  nor  the 
loss  of  its  basic  cadre  of  revolutionary  Negroes, 
women,  unionists  and  intellectuals  could  shake 
its  complacency. 

The  Last  Struggle— Over  Anti-War  Policy 

The  policy  of  the  SWP  leadership  in  the  anti- 
war movement  brought  our  differences  to  the 
breaking  point. 

After  standing  aside  from  the  anti-war  move- 
ment during  its  critical  formative  stages,  the  SWP 
decided  in  mid-1965  to  plunge  in— for  an  organ- 
izational raid. 

We  made  one  last  attempt  to  prevent  a 
disaster  for  Trotskyism  in  the  U.S. 

We  protested  against  the  single-issue,  anti- 
political  policy  of  SWP  and  YSA,  which  led  them 
into  the  presumptuous  demand  that  the  Thanks- 
giving NCC  [National  Coordinating  Committee] 
conference  in  Washington,  D.C.  center  its  delib- 
erations around  the  party's  peculiar  and  confus- 
ing organizational  proposals,  rather  than  around 
questions  of  program  and  principle.  This  course 
was  unprecedented  in  our  movement.  We  denied 
the  SWP  characterization  of  the  left  wing  of  the 
anti-war  movement  as  "Stalinist."  We  condemned 
their  fearful  refusal  to  proclaim  clear  support  to 
the  National  Liberation  Front  and  their  super- 
cautious  and  outdated  policy  on  the  draft,  which 
prevents  effective  opposition  to  it. 

We  advocated  a  proletarian  anti-war  policy 
that  would  solidarize  the  party  with  the  revolu- 
tion in  Vietnam,  with  working-class  Negro  youth 
who  are  the  key  victims  of  the  draft,  and  with  the 
radical  wing  of  the  anti-war  movement. 


80 


The  SWP  Substitutes  Organizational 
Attacks  for  Political  Debate 

The  party's  policy  in  the  anti-war  movement 
had  never  been  subject  to  rank  and  file  discus- 
sion. Comrade  Kirk,  a  member  of  the  National 
Committee  for  25  years,  requested  a  debate  on 
the  issue  within  the  N.C.  He  flew  to  New  York  to 
participate  in  it,  and  discovered  that  the  chief 
results  of  his  protest  were  punitive  organizational 
measures  directed  against  him  personally,  against 
the  Seattle  Branch  as  a  whole,  and  against  other 
supporters  of  the  tendency.  Such  measures  are 
understood  within  the  party  to  be  a  prelude  to 
expulsion. 

Under  such  circumstances,  the  resignation  we 
had  contemplated  for  some  time  became 
inevitable. 

The  SWP's  estrangement  from  the  Negro 
struggle  and  its  refusal  to  intervene  politically  in 
the  anti-war  movement  or  in  the  present  rebirth 
of  interest  in  socialist  thought  have  removed  it  for 
this  period  from  the  epicenter  of  revolutionary 
activity  and  ideology  in  the  U.S.  We  would  wel- 
come a  turn  which  would  reverse  this  tragic 
degenerative  process,  but  we  cannot  wait  for  this 
possibility.  There  are  more  vital  things  to  do  in 
the  class  struggle  than  conduct  a  futile  and 
debilitating  internecine  organizational  struggle 
over  tertiary  administrative  issues.  Since  every 
political  difference  and  discussion  is  now  mud- 
died and  prejudiced  by  an  organizational  smoke- 
screen thrown  over  it  by  the  party  leadership  to 
obscure  the  principled  issues  in  dispute,  the  party 
can  no  longer  contain  critics.  And  revolutionaries 
who  are  not  critical  cannot  maintain  for  long 
their  revolutionary  quality. 

Our  Objectives 

In  resigning,  we  reaffirm  our  commitment  to 
Marxism,  to  Leninism  and  to  Trotskyism,  and  we 
have  set  forth  these  immediate  objectives: 

(1 )  To  join  with  other  independent  socialists 
in  the  Pacific  Northwest  in  the  creation  of  a  new 
revolutionary  socialist  party  here. 

(2)  To  continue  collaboration  with  our  col- 
leagues throughout  the  country,  with  the  object 
of  making  our  views  known  to  the  various  compo- 
nents within  U.S.  radicalism. 

(3)  To  advocate,  support  and  participate  in 
a  revival  and  regeneration  of  Marxism  in  the  U.S., 
and  in  a  fundamental  reorganization  of  socialists 
in  a  new  revolutionary  socialist  party,  able  to 
unite  the  Negro  vanguard  with  the  socialist  radi- 


cals. We  believe  this  to  be  the  indispensable 
formula  for  the  foundation  of  a  genuine  revolu- 
tionary socialism  in  this  country. 


Our  Program 

The  following  is  the  gist  of  the  program  we 
have  developed  and  fought  for  within  the  SWP 
for  many  years.  We  are  presenting  it  now  publicly 
for  the  first  time  for  the  consideration  of  all 
revolutionary  socialists  and  all  mass  movement 
militants  and  radicals. 

I.    For  a  Revolutionary  Marxist  Approach 
to  the  Negro  Struggle 

The  connection  between  the  proletarian 
struggle  for  socialism  and  the  Negro  struggle  for 
equality  is  INTEGRAL  and  proclaims  the  unfold- 
ing of  the  permanent  revolution  in  the  U.S. 

The  fascist-like  police  states  of  the  south  are 
structurally  basic  to  the  capitalist  political  econ- 
omy of  the  U.S.  The  struggle  against  segregation, 
therefore,  threatens  the  entire  nationwide  social 
system.  This  fact  demonstrates  the  impossibility 
of  achieving  equality  under  U.S.  capitalism,  and 
it  further  transforms  the  demand  for  integration 
into  a  transitional  revolutionary  demand.  This 
in  turn  guarantees  the  emergence  of  a  revolution- 
ary left  wing  that  will  contend  for  leadership 
against  the  reformist/tokenists  in  the  civil  rights 
movement. 

The  development  of  all-black  organizations 
expresses  and  cultivates  the  pride  and  self- 
reliance  of  the  most  oppressed,  and  opens  new 
avenues  in  the  struggle  for  freedom.  But  these  so- 
called  "nationalist"  formations  do  not  result  from 
any  inherent  drive  toward  national  separatism, 
but  from  organizational  needs  and  from  an  inter- 
nationalism that  identifies  the  Negro  struggle 
with  the  colonial  revolution.  The  demands  of  the 
essentially  proletarian  masses  express  the  historic 
needs  of  the  working  class  as  a  whole  in  the  strug- 
gle against  capitalist  exploitation. 

No  amount  of  all-black  independence  can 
overcome  the  terrible  isolation  of  the  Negro 
masses  from  the  white  working  class  and  the 
socialist  movement.  What  is  revealed  here  is  the 
backwardness  of  the  labor  movement  and  the 
theoretical  bankruptcy  of  the  established  left. 
This  isolation  is  a  mortal  danger  both  to  the 
freedom  struggle  and  to  the  struggle  for  social- 
ism, since  each  is  impossible  without  the  other. 


81 


The  Negro  struggle  is  the  central  question  of 
the  American  Revolution  and  the  Negro  move- 
ment is  the  vanguard  sector  of  the  entire  working 
class.  That  is  why  the  Negro  movement  is  the  first 
target  of  reaction:  racism  and  the  southern  system 
are  the  launching  pads  of  American  fascism. 

The  Negro  movement  must  be  encouraged  to 
develop  a  Marxist  program  and  cadre  that  can 
unite  the  ghetto  masses  with  the  southern  strug- 
gle into  a  powerful  revolutionary  force,  and  there 
can  then  be  forged  a  working  alliance  among  the 
Negro  vanguard,  socialist  revolutionaries  and  the 
militants  in  the  white  working  class. 

This  is  the  key  to  the  American  Revolution. 

II.   For  Solidarity  with  the  Chinese  Revolution 

The  Chinese  Revolution  upset  the  interna- 
tional class  peace  agreed  to  at  Potsdam  and 
Teheran.  This  great  revolution  confirmed  once 
again  the  validity  of  Trotsky's  thesis  of  permanent 
revolution  by  demonstrating  that  the  national 
revolution  in  backward  countries  cannot  achieve 
its  goals  of  national  independence,  national 
unification  and  economic  growth  without  going 
over  to  the  stage  of  socialist  revolution. 

China's  experience  (not  lost  on  the  Cuban 
revolutionaries)  established  China  as  the  key  to 
the  colonial  revolution  and  the  principal  target  of 
world  imperialism. 

At  first  in  practice,  and  then  in  an  ideological 
polemic  against  the  Soviet  bureaucracy,  the  Chi- 
nese CP  opposed  the  policy  of  class  collaboration 
with  world  imperialism  as  expounded  and  prac- 
ticed by  both  Stalin  and  the  current  Soviet  leader- 
ship. The  international  debate  which  ensued, 
forcing  world  Communism  to  examine  the  issues, 
began  the  creation  of  revolutionary  tendencies 
who  opposed  the  reformist  leaderships  through- 
out the  Communist  movement.  The  necessary 
prerequisites  were  thereby  established  for  an 
international  revolutionary  regroupment. 

Still,  the  progressive  character  of  the 
international  role  of  the  Communist  Party  of 
China  is  severely  limited  by  the  residue  of  Stal- 
inism. The  Khrushchev  revelations  about  Stalin  at 
the  20th  Congress  of  the  CPSU  revealed  the 
cracks  in  the  Soviet  bureaucracy  which  might 
have  been  exploited  by  the  Soviet  workers  to  the 
point  of  political  revolution  against  the  entire 
regime  and  the  reinstitution  of  proletarian  democ- 
racy in  the  Soviet  Union.  But  the  Chinese  Com- 
munist Party  by  its  public  adulation  of  Stalin  and 
Stalinism  struck  a  severe  blow  at  the  democratic 
aspirations  of  the   Soviet  proletariat  and  thus 


helped  to  re-cement  the  power  of  the  bureaucrat- 
ic caste  in  the  Soviet  Union. 

The  CPC  stubbornly  maintains  Mao's  theory— 
not  fundamentally  different  from  Stalin's— that 
the  national  revolution  in  colonial  countries  can 
be  carried  to  fruition  by  a  joint  dictatorship  of 
the  proletariat  and  the  native  bourgeoisie— in 
spite  of  the  CPC's  own  experience  which  refutes 
this  theory! 

The  disastrous  results  of  the  policy  flowing 
from  this  theory  are  to  be  seen  in  Indonesia.  The 
Chinese  leadership  must  share  responsibility  for 
the  policy  followed  by  the  Indonesian  Communist 
movement,  a  policy  in  no  way  distinguishable 
from  that  of  the  CP  in  China  in  the  twenties  in 
respect  to  the  Kuomintang  and  Chiang  Kai-shek, 
and  a  policy  that  produced  the  identical  end: 
massacre  and  utter  rout. 

The  CPC's  favorable  references  to  Stalin 
result  from  this  chronic  contradiction  in  both 
their  theory  and  practice. 

China's  internal  life,  however,  differs  sharply 
from  the  Soviet  model.  Clearly  absent  is  the  im- 
mense privileged  bureaucracy,  wielding  arbitrary 
authority  through  an  all-powerful  secret  police. 
The  concentration  camps  and  blood  purges  that 
are  the  hallmarks  of  Stalinism  are  also  absent. 
The  expanding  role  of  the  workers  and  peasants 
in  economic  planning  and  control  has  resulted  in 
a  consistent  economic  growth  and  a  realistic 
potential  for  greater  proletarian  democracy. 

The  Chinese  Communists  are  sensitive  to  the 
growth  of  bureaucracy  in  China.  But  they  cannot 
ultimately  prevent  its  growth  so  long  as  they 
remain  blind  to  its  origin  and  history  in  the 
USSR.  While  the  very  symbol  of  bureaucratic 
privilege  and  tyranny— Stalin— continues  to  be 
idolized  in  China,  they  will  hover  on  the  verge  of 
retrogression  and  degeneration. 

Likewise,  their  Stalinist  heritage  prevents  the 
CPC  from  playing  a  decisive  role  in  the  reorgani- 
zation of  a  worldwide  revolutionary  international. 

III.  For  Serious  Politics  in  the  Anti-War  Movement 

The  capitalist  class  has  a  fundamental  stake 
in  the  war  in  Vietnam  and  will  not  withdraw 
short  of  a  military/political  defeat  or  virtual  civil 
war  at  home.  The  only  way  that  the  American 
people  can  stop  this  war  is  through  a  mass 
political  movement  of  the  working  class. 

Vanguard  elements  of  the  anti-war  movement 
feel  their  isolation  from  the  working  class  to  be 
a  basic  weakness  of  the  movement;  they  seek  alli- 
ances with  the  proletariat  and  specifically  with 


82 


the  Negroes,  that  section  of  the  working  class 
already  in  motion.  As  a  consequence  of  a  serious 
effort  to  stop  the  war,  anti-war  militants  are 
groping  for  fundamental  solutions  to  social  prob- 
lems. They  seek  to  unite  Negroes,  the  poverty- 
stricken,  draft  resisters,  radical  unionists,  so- 
cialists, etc.,  into  a  broad  political  movement. 

Revolutionary  Marxists  should  help  them  find 
the  correct  road  to  political  unity  by  demon- 
strating the  necessity  of  independent  anti- 
capitalist  politics  that  connect  the  war  to  the 
other  evils  of  the  system.  Political  ventures  short 
of  such  a  program  are  doomed  to  eventual  capitu- 
lation to  the  Democratic  Party  and  other  forms  of 
class  collaboration  politics. 

The  liberal  plea  for  "Negotiations"  with  the 
Vietnamese  Revolution  must  be  exposed;  the  only 
principled  slogan  is  "Withdraw  U.S.  Troops  Now." 
But  a  demand  for  withdrawal  that  is  devoid  of  a 
meaningful  economic  analysis  of  the  cause  of 
war,  even  this  slogan  fosters  the  illusion  that  the 
anti-war  movement  by  itself  will  pressure  the  U.S. 
out  of  Vietnam.  The  notion  that  simply  more 
activism  and  more  protesters  can  end  the  war  is 
an  essentially  pacifist  proposition.  This  unrealistic 
and  anti-political  approach  is  a  dangerous  con- 
servative barrier  to  the  political  development  of 
the  anti-war  movement. 

IV.   For  a  Revolutionary  Approach 
to  the  Woman  Question 

We  place  the  struggle  for  women's  emanci- 
pation on  the  level  of  a  first-class  theoretical  and 
programmatic  question. 

As  the  first  tendency  in  the  history  of 
American  radicalism  to  formally  incorporate  this 
question  into  our  basic  program,  we  proclaim  our 
resistance  to  the  creeping  paralysis  of  male  su- 
premacy which  by  now  has  become  an  ingrained 
practice  in  the  entire  labor  and  socialist 
movement,  and  a  growing  danger  in  the  civil 
rights  movement. 

The  leading  role  of  women  in  the  fight  for 
civil  rights,  in  the  anti-war  movement,  in  civil 
liberties  campaigns,  etc.,  is  not  accidental,  but 
results  from  the  special  dynamic  developed  by 
women  as  an  oppressed  sex,  seeking  liberation  for 


themselves  and  for  all  other  victims  of  discrim- 
ination. 

The  feminine  mystique,  along  with  racism, 
remains  the  Achilles  heel  of  the  labor  movement 
and  a  significant  factor  in  the  history  of  union 
degeneration.  Women's  equality  must  be  raised 
as  a  transitional  slogan  whose  dynamism  flows 
from  the  pivotal  location  of  the  Woman  Question 
in  U.S.  life,  where  the  oppression  and  special 
exploitation  of  women  is  a  burning  injustice  that 
intersects  with  every  other  political  question  and 
social  movement. 

V.  For  Revolutionary  Unification  and  the 
Regeneration  of  Socialist  Thought 

Conditions  for  a  meaningful  discussion  of 
Marxist  ideology  and  for  the  creation  of  a  united 
revolutionary  socialist  party  have  rarely  been  as 
favorable  as  they  are  today. 

The  essentially  anti-capitalist  character  of  the 
Freedom  Now  and  anti-war  movements  draws  the 
militants  from  both  movements  together  in  a 
search  for  political  unity.  The  end  of  the  Stalin 
era  and  the  current  Sino-Soviet  dispute  have 
weakened  old  prejudices  and  created  an  atmos- 
phere favoring  political  discussion  in  the  socialist 
movement.  The  crisis  of  capitalism,  demonstrated 
by  the  permanent  war  policy  of  the  Democratic 
administration  and  its  hypocrisy  in  civil  rights 
and  anti-poverty,  has  forced  one-time  liberals  and 
pacifists  into  a  serious  consideration  of  Marxism. 
An  entire  generation  of  radical  youth,  disgusted 
by  its  inheritance,  and  enthused  by  the  courage 
and  determination  of  the  colonial  revolutionists 
abroad  and  the  Freedom  fighters  at  home,  is 
seeking  more  effective  methods  and  ideas  for  the 
struggle  against  capitalism. 

Revolutionary  Marxists  must  accelerate  and 
help  give  form  to  this  growing  need  for  a  new 
socialist  movement.  We  must  add  to  the  energy, 
inventiveness,  and  boldness  of  the  New  Left  the 
most  important  qualities  of  the  Trotskyist  Old 
Left:  Marxist  ideology,  a  proletarian  orientation, 
experience  in  the  class  struggle,  and  the  recog- 
nition of  the  need  for  a  centralized,  disciplined 
and  thoroughly  democratic  revolutionary  party. 


A  Letter  to  American  Trotskyists 

TOO  LITTLE,  TOO  LATE 

(Memorandum  on  the  Problems  of 

Building  a  Revolutionary  Party) 


From  Revolutionary  Age  Vol.  3,  No.  4  (1974/75).  Revolutionary  Age  was  the 
irregular  journal  of  Fraser's  supporters  after  the  1 968  split  in  the  Freedom 
Socialist  Party. 


It  would  be  redundant  to  independent  radi- 
cals to  observe  that  the  movement  is  dispersed. 
Nevertheless,  I  must  say  it,  because  that  is  the 
starting  place  of  this  memo.  This  condition  is 
brought  about  by  the  degeneration  of  its  major 
parties,  the  Communist  Party  and  the  Socialist 
Workers  Party,  the  disintegration  of  SDS  [Stu- 
dents for  a  Democratic  Society],  and  the  ebb  tide 
of  the  class  struggle.  At  the  same  time,  the  radi- 
calization  of  the  '60s,  principally  in  the  ghetto 
and  on  the  campus,  has  left  a  residue  of  high 
social  consciousness.  Dozens  and  perhaps  hun- 
dreds of  revolutionary-minded  groups,  grouplets, 
leagues,  and  thousands  of  unorganized  individual 
radicals,  are  seriously  debating  what  to  do  next. 
This  condition  objectively  demands  a  massive 
regroupment  of  revolutionary  forces  and  the  for- 
mation of  a  new  party.  This  memorandum  is  de- 
signed to  be  a  contribution  to  the  discussion  of 
how  this  may  be  accomplished. 

The  evolution  of  an  aspiring  revolutionary 
party  is  determined  by  the  reciprocal  relations  of 
four  basic  elements: 

THEORY.  The  understanding  and  ability  to 
use  creatively  Marxist  political  economy  and  his- 
torical/dialectical materialism. 

STRATEGY.  The  foresight  and  ability  to  put 
the  organization  in  a  position  to  struggle  effec- 
tively for  political  hegemony  over  the  proletariat 
in  a  constantly  changing  situation.  From  strategic 
concepts  flow  most  of  the  decisive  tactical  ele- 
ments: fusions  and  splits,  the  United  Front,  op- 
ponents work;  support  and  critical  support, 
entries  or  partial  entries,  etc.;  mass  organization 
orientation. 

PROGRAM.  The  political  program.  The  eval- 
uation of  current  political  problems  facing  the 
working  class  and  proposed  solutions,  designed 
to  heighten  political  consciousness.  This  applies 


not  only  to  the  formally  adopted  resolutions,  but 
to  the  daily  life  and  work  of  the  organization,  its 
leadership  and  organizational  principles. 

SOCIAL  BASE.  That  social  sector  from  which 
the  organization  derives  its  basic  support  and  to 
which  it  has  its  main  sensitivity.  The  extent  to 
which  it  successfully  seeks  that  social  base  in 
non-privileged  sectors  of  the  proletariat  will  be 
decisive  to  its  development. 

Any  one  of  these  categories  can  become  de- 
cisive in  determining  the  direction  of  motion  and 
the  final  product,  because  all  are  interacting. 

The  CP  Degenerates  to  Reformism 

For  instance,  the  Communist  Party  after 
1929:  Despite  its  developing  mass  influence  and 
militancy,  it  had  come  under  the  complete  domi- 
nation of  the  Soviet  secret  police  (GPU),  and 
found  its  social  base  in  the  Soviet  bureaucracy. 
The  first  consequence  of  its  change  of  social  base 
was  the  erosion  of  theoretical  concepts,  and  wild 
strategic  gyrations.  The  strategic  failures  on  an 
international  scale  led  to  defeats  (Germany, 
Spain)  which  strengthened  the  reactionary  char- 
acter of  the  social  base— the  Soviet  bureaucracy. 
The  outcome  of  this  process  led  finally  to  pro- 
grammatic degeneracy,  eventually  to  reformism; 
in  no  way  qualitatively  different  from  Social 
Democratic  reformism. 

The  interrelationship  between  these  cate- 
gories is  elaborately  demonstrated  and  developed 
in  the  founding  documents  of  the  Trotskyist 
movement:  "Criticism  of  the  Draft  Program,"  "The 
Strategy  of  World  Revolution,"  etc.  (contained  in 
The  Third  International  After  Lenin). 

The  Socialist  Workers  Party 

More  pertinent  to  those  seeking  to  profit 
from  the  problems  of  the  past  is  to  examine  the 


83 


84 


history  of  the  Socialist  Workers  Party  (SWP)  from 
the  criteria  outlined  above.  More  pertinent,  be- 
cause the  SWP  was  a  native  movement,  and  be- 
cause it  was  the  best  of  the  Marxist-oriented 
formations  to  emerge  from  the  turbulent  class 
struggles  of  the  '30s.  It  had,  however,  basic  de- 
fects at  the  time  of  its  formation  in  1938,  which 
it  is  necessary  to  examine.  For  this,  I  will  have  to 
rely  on  my  recollections.  I  entered  the  Trotskyist 
movement  shortly  after  the  fusion  of  the  (Trot- 
skyist) Communist  League  of  America  and  the 
(Musteite)  American  Workers  Party  (AWP), 
forming  the  Workers  Party  of  the  U.S.  in  1934. 

At  the  time  of  its  formation  the  SWP  had  a 
dual  social  base:  1.  Middle-class  intellectuals. 
2.  Two  white  craft  unions:  the  Sailors  Union  of 
the  Pacific  (SUP)  and  the  Minneapolis  Teamsters 
(eventually  designated  Local  544).  In  this  discus- 
sion I  shall  ignore  the  question  of  the  intellec- 
tuals' influence,  because  this  was  solved  in  the 
1940  split  when  the  Shachtmanites  left:  solved 
only  for  the  period  under  consideration,  however, 
as  the  SWP  has  lost  its  working-class  orientation 
and  become  essentially  petty-bourgeois  in  both 
composition  and  social  base. 

The  1934  Teamsters'  strikes  in  Minneapolis 
were,  in  terms  of  elementary  class  struggle, 
classics.  The  General  Strike,  masterminded  by 
V.R.  Dunne  and  J. P.  Cannon,  combined  a  well 
planned  and  brilliantly  executed  civil  war  with  a 
phenomenal  rise  in  social  consciousness.  This 
strike  put  the  CLA  on  the  political  map  and 
created  the  magnetism  which  drew  the  Musteites 
and  the  Socialist  Party  militants  toward  it, 
developing  new  strategic  possibilities. 

The  1936-37  Maritime  strike  (its  West  Coast 
segment)  gave  us  the  opportunity  for  decisive 
intervention  in  support  of  the  militant  struggle  of 
the  SUP  against  the  conservative  policies  of  the 
Stalinist-led  unions. 

Regardless  of  the  militance  and  even  his- 
torical significance  of  these  episodes,  the  narrow 
social  base  which  they  supplied  the  SWP  at  the 
time  of  the  emergence  and  turbulent  development 
of  the  CIO  was  to  produce  devastating  conse- 
quences in  other  categories— Theory,  Strategy, 
Program— as  I  shall  demonstrate. 

The  Sailors  Union  and  the  Teamsters 

Both  of  the  unions  of  our  social  base  were 
pitted  against  the  CP.  In  Minneapolis,  the  Sta- 
linists weren't  a  real  danger,  as  we  were  power- 
fully situated.  They  were  mainly  a  political 
nuisance.  But  in  the  SUP  there  was  a  struggle— "to 


the  death"— with  the  Longshoremen  (ILWU),  the 
Marine  Cooks  and  Stewards  (MC&S)  and  finally 
the  National  Maritime  Union  (NMU). 

The  Lundberg  machine  which  effectively  ran 
the  SUP  was  based  on  three  semi-privileged 
groups  of  coastal  seamen.  1.  The  Matson  Shore 
gang:  seamen  who  stayed  in  San  Francisco  and 
did  maintenance  work  on  the  large  Matson  fleet. 
2.  Steam  schooner  sailors:  working  the  coastal 
trade  bringing  lumber  from  the  Pacific  Northwest 
to  California  (steam  schooners  were  being  rapidly 
replaced  by  modern  ships,  however  the  trade  re- 
tained its  designation).  3.  The  Alaska  run,  largely 
based  in  Seattle.  After  the  1936-37  strike  these 
sailors,  working  a  short  season  (approximately 
May  to  October)  made  fabulous  wages  loading 
cargo  from  the  Alaska  canneries— overtime, 
double-time  and  triple-time,  etc.  They  could 
usually  make  much  more  in  five  to  six  months 
than  an  off-shore  sailor  could  make  in  a  year. 
Most  of  them  were  in  home  port  half  the  year 
and  frequently  during  the  season. 

The  relative  stability  of  these  groups  gave 
them  a  preponderant  influence  on  the  affairs  of 
the  union,  at  the  expense  of  the  off-shore  sailors, 
who  represented  the  majority  of  the  union.  These 
conditions  also  applied  to  the  Marine  Firemen 
(MFOW). 

In  many  of  the  issues  of  the  struggle  of  the 
SUP  against  the  CP,  the  former  demonstrated  a 
superior  militancy  on  the  elementary  level  of 
union  issues.  However,  its  fanatical  anti-Stalinism 
sounded  more  like  and- communism,  and  had  dis- 
tinctly reactionary  connotations.  The  SWP  was  a 
political  spokesman  for  the  SUP,  and  our  com- 
rades became  experts  in  the  struggle  against 
Stalinism  in  the  unions. 

Expertise  at  Anti-Stalinism 

Most  prominent  in  this  field  of  expertise  was 
Tom  Kerry.  In  support  of  SUP  policy,  he  led  the 
fight  against  Walter  Stack  and  the  CP  group  in 
the  MFOW,  finally  driving  them  from  the  offices 
they  held.  He  accomplished  this  largely  in  the 
capacity  of  editor  of  the  West  Coast  Fireman.  He 
was  also  associated  with  the  West  Coast  Sailor 
and  the  Seafarers'  Log.  After  coming  to  New  York 
he  guided  a  "progressive"  opposition  to  the  Sta- 
linist leadership  of  the  Painters  Union,  which  was 
successful  in  dislodging  them. 

By  pursuing  our  specialty  we  came  to  the 
edge  of  disaster  twice  in  the  Auto  union. 

Both  of  the  unions  of  our  main  social  base 
were    strongly   committed   to    the   AFL— partly 


85 


because  the  CP  was  the  dominant  political  force 
in  the  CIO.  In  this  circumstance  we  drifted  rather 
unconsciously,  I  think,  into  a  kind  of  pro-AFL 
attitude  which  obscured  to  the  party  the  funda- 
mentally dynamic  quality  of  the  CIO.  This  preju- 
dice was  sustained  until  1940-41  when  the 
Minneapolis  Teamsters,  under  fire  from  the  high 
bureaucracy,  went  over  to  the  CIO.  It  must  have 
been  partially  this  prejudice,  plus  a  growing 
Stalinophobia,  which  was  responsible  for  our  first 
crisis. 

When  we  got  our  first  foot-hold  in  the  UAW, 
we  offered  our  services  to  Homer  Martin,  Presi- 
dent, in  his  struggle  against  the  Stalinists.  But 
Martin  was  headed  straight  for  the  AFL,  where  he 
soon  went,  attempting  to  set  up  a  dual  union. 
Cannon  tells  (in  The  Struggle  for  a  Proletarian 
Party)  how  V.R.  Dunne  and  other  men  in  the  field 
extricated  our  Auto  group  from  this  disgraceful 
policy  in  1938,  by  challenging  the  central 
leadership  in  New  York. 

But  we  were  in  for  yet  another  "bloc"  crisis. 
For  most  of  World  War  II,  Walter  Reuther,  as 
head  of  the  General  Motors  division  of  the  UAW, 
had  played  a  better  role  than  most  others,  partic- 
ularly the  CP;  and  after  the  war  we  sometimes 
joined  forces  with  him. 

However,  after  the  strike  wave  of  1945-46 
Reuther  took  a  right  turn,  and  we  found  ourselves 
in  his  caucus  as  he  was  carrying  a  reactionary  war 
against  the  controlling  Thomas-Addes  caucus 
which  was  energized  by  the  CP.  This  struggle 
pointed  toward  the  campaign  by  the  CIO  hierar- 
chy to  wipe  out  all  CIO  unions  which  were  under 
the  influence  of  radical  elements:  Farm  Equip- 
ment Workers,  Mine  Mill  and  Smelter,  United 
Electrical  Workers,  etc. 

It  is  to  the  credit  of  Clarke  and  Cochran  that 
we  were  able  to  reverse  this  policy  and  pull  out 
of  the  Reuther  caucus.  A  continuation  of  this 
policy  would  have  hopelessly  compromised  us.  I 
recall  that  during  the  National  Committee  debate 
in  the  summer  of  1947  which  broke  the  bloc  with 
Reuther,  Clarke  remarked  (in  comment  upon 
eulogies  about  our  successful  struggles  against 
the  Stalinists  in  past  years),  "Yes,  we  fought  the 
Stalinists  well  in  the  MFOW  and  elsewhere,  but 
I  have  a  feeling  that  perhaps  we  fought  them  too 
well."  (Among  all  the  progressive  and  militant 
bureaucrats  for  whom  we  did  our  sanitizing  jobs 
against  the  CP,  I  don't  recall  one  who  didn't  turn 
against  us  once  the  Stalinists  were  whipped.  They 
were  to  wind  up  more  often  than  not  in  the  camp 
of  reaction.) 


Clarke  and  Cochran  came  into  that  NC 
meeting  a  minority,  but  finally  Jim  [Cannon] 
supported  them  and  the  day  was  saved. 

Generally  speaking,  our  criterion  for  political 
advancement  among  the  militant  and  progressive 
workers  was  anti-Stalinism.  The  idea  was  that 
progressive  unionism  combined  with  anti- 
Stalinism  was  by  itself  an  almost  automatic 
transition  to  socialist  consciousness. 

The  conception  found  its  theoretical  expres- 
sion in  the  erroneous  perspectives  of  our  labor 
party  propaganda  during  the  entire  period  from 
1938  to  1948.  It  was  postulated  by  Dobbs  that 
the  labor  party,  based  on  the  trade  unions,  begin- 
ning as  a  reformist  party,  would  become  so  jolted 
by  crises  and  the  radicalization  of  the  workers 
that  it  would  take  power,  nationalize  the  means 
of  production  and,  in  effect,  establish  the 
dictatorship  of  the  proletariat. 

Theory  and  Strategy 

The  strategy  of  the  Trotskyists  before  1938 
may  justifiably  be  characterized  as  flexible.  The 
fusion  with  the  Musteites  (1934)  and  the  entry 
into  the  SP  (1936),  whatever  the  ultimate  con- 
sequences of  the  latter,  represented  a  serious 
evaluation  of  political  trends  and  efforts  to  face 
them  realistically. 

We  Are  the  Party! 

However,  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the 
SWP  (1938)  Cannon  proclaimed  new  doctrines. 
As  we  left  the  SP  Cannon  said:  This  is  our  last 
maneuver,  barring  the  possibility  of  a  labor  party 
development.  We  shall  have  no  further  orienta- 
tions toward  other  political  tendencies.  We  are 
the  one  and  only  party.  The  Stalinists  are  finished. 
We  don't  have  to  worry  about  them— just  fight  'em. 

At  this  time  the  CP  still  exercised  a  clear 
political  hegemony  over  the  radical  working  class 
in  both  the  mass  production  industries  and 
Marine  Transportation! 

We  had  registered  important  trade  unionistic 
successes  in  the  SUP,  the  MFOW,  and  the  Mid- 
west Teamsters,  and  in  these  areas  we  had 
politically  discredited  the  CP.  However,  the 
contradiction  between  union  militancy  and  politi- 
cal conservatism,  and  the  great  successes  on  a 
narrow  social  base,  seemed  to  warp  Jim  s  judge- 
ment, and  induced  him  to  negative  strategic  con- 
clusions. He  thereby  elevated  tactics  to  a  pre- 
eminence over  strategy,  and  congealed  the  party 
in  a  rigid  mold  of  "we  are  the  one  and  only," 


86 


which  denied  us  the  flexibility  necessary  to  take 
advantage  of  opportunities  in  the  CP  milieu:  the 
temporary  left  turn  of  the  CP  in  1940,  the  devel- 
opment of  the  New  York  Labor  Party  and  the  Pro- 
gressive Party,  and  the  crisis  created  by  the 
Twentieth  Congress  and  Khrushchev's  revelations. 

Organizing  the  Revolution 

The  second  of  Cannon's  proclamations  stated 
that  ours  was  only  the  task  of  organizing  the  rev- 
olution, Theory  and  Program  had  been  all  worked 
out  and  laid  down  by  the  Masters.  It  was  finished. 
It  was  not  our  responsibility  to  make  new  analy- 
ses of  the  changing  reality,  but  to  follow  the 
blueprint  and  organize  the  revolution.  We  all 
understood  that  this  meant  that  the  problems  of 
meeting  new  realities  theoretically  was  not  so 
much  a  matter  of  concrete  analysis,  but  of 
applying  formulae.  Thus  we  began  to  replace 
Theory  with  Doctrine,  and  took  a  further  step  in 
destroying  Strategy  by  elevating  the  Organization 
question  along  with  Tactics  to  this  exalted  level. 
Although  we  worshipped  at  the  shrine  of  Theory, 
it  was  the  theory  created  by  others— principally 
Trotsky— and  which  provided  us  with  a  Doctrine. 

A  Cult  of  the  Organizer  arose  (of  which  I  must 
admit  I  was  a  charter  member),  which  had  the 
sad  consequence  of  creating  the  super  formula- 
organizers  among  the  young  Shachtmanites  who 
had  come  with  us  from  the  SP. 

I  might  say  parenthetically  that  the  ultimate 
product  of  this  school  of  formula-theorizing  and 
formula-organizing  was  Jim  Robertson.  Having  a 
strong  personal  liking  for  him  and  a  high  regard 
for  his  ability,  I  must  nevertheless  say  that 
Robertson  and  his  organization  (Spartacist 
League)  have  only  appropriated  these  worst  as- 
pects of  Cannonism  and  Shachtmanism  and 
drawn  them  to  their  final,  ultimate  and  logical 
but  utterly  ludicrous  conclusion. 

Origins  of  Racism  and  Male  Chauvinism 
in  SWP  Support  to  the  Sailors  Union 

In  the  struggle  against  Stalinist  influence 
among  seamen,  the  SUP  and  finally  the  MFOW 
pitted  themselves  most  viciously  against  the 
MC&S,  a  predominately  black  union.  There  is  no 
denying  that  most  of  the  Syndicalists,  with  whom 
we  were  allied  and  whom  we  supported  uncriti- 
cally, were  racists,  including  Lundberg,  the 
unquestioned  leader. 

Lundberg  was— at  least  in  these  early  days— a 
militant  and  a  consistent  one  in  the  framework  of 
craft  unionism.  He  would  probably  have  laid 


down  his  life  for  the  SUP.  He  fiercely  hated  the 
shipowners,  the  government  and  the  "Commies." 
He  never  hesitated  to  tie  up  a  ship  on  a  half-way 
reasonable  beef.  He  was  fearless  on  the  picket 
line  and  a  tough  negotiator— and  he  had  a  sense 
of  humor.* 

Lundberg  had  built  the  SUP  in  a  split  and  a 
war  with  the  AFL  International  Seamen's  Union 
(ISU).  When  he  was  refused  a  national  charter  by 
the  CIO,  who  gave  it  to  the  CP-controlled  NMU, 
he  negotiated  an  agreement  with  the  Executive 
Committee  of  the  AFL  to  take  over  the  remains  of 
the  moribund  ISU  and  re-charter  it  as  the  Sea- 
farers' International  Union  (SIU).  As  he  was 
signing  the  Charter,  William  Green  said  some- 
thing to  the  effect  that  "we  are  taking  a  chance 
with  you,  Harry,  you  know,  you've  been  no 
angel";  to  which  Lundberg  replied,  "I  did  not 
know  that  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Amer- 
ican Federation  of  Labor  vass  composed  of 
angels." 

But  his  racism  was  most  pronounced.  At  one 
time  Revels  Cayton,  Secretary  of  the  MC&S,  came 
to  the  Sailors  Hall,  apparently  on  a  conciliatory 
mission.  He  was  met  at  the  door  by  Lundberg, 
who  threw  him  bodily  down  the  stairs  with  the 
following  (approximate)  salutation:  "Get  out  and 
stay  out— nigger  black  son  of  a  bitch!" 

The  hostility  between  the  two  unions,  which 
lived  together  in  isolation  aboard  ship,  brought 
on  racial  tensions  in  which  the  racism  of  the 
Sailors  and  Firemen  was  usually  present. 

In  the  whole  history  of  our  West  Coast 
Maritime  group,  I  never  heard  of  anyone  in  the 
group  having  a  friend  or  "contact"  among  the 
black  MC&S.  Various  speculations  were  expressed 
as  to  why  the  CP  had  all  the  influence  there.  The 
most  peculiar  of  these  views,  apparently  generally 
accepted,  was  that  this  circumstance  was  of  no 
consequence  because  inevitably  the  Cooks  and 
Stewards,  mostly  black,  were  historically  bound 
(as  a  kind  of  peasantry)  eventually  to  follow  the 
"proletariat"  represented  by  the  deck-hands  and 
black  gang  (firemen). 

Transportation  workers  in  general  and  par- 
ticularly seamen  have  always  been  among  the 
most  outspoken  and  habitual  male  chauvinists  in 


*  In  a  negotiation  session,  after  the  shipowners  had  laid 
down  proposals  for  tightening  up  working  rules,  penal- 
ties for  violations,  etc.,  Lundberg  arose  and  quickly  took 
down  his  pants,  revealing  his  penis.  The  opposing  nego- 
tiators were  taken  aback  and  he  explained:  "If  ve  going 
to  work  like  horses,  ve  gonna  look  like  horses," 
fracturing  the  session. 


87 


the  working  class.  This  is  probably  made  inevi- 
table because  of  the  segregated  male  character  of 
the  industry,  combined  with  political  backward- 
ness. Among  seamen  this  was  aggravated  by  the 
long  periods  of  segregation  and  the  semi-itinerant 
nature  of  their  employment.  Their  characteristic 
term  for  woman  was  "bag";  their  principal  female 
contacts,  prostitutes. 

Given  the  uncritical  support  which  we  gave 
to  the  SUP  and  its  Syndicalist  leading  core,  plus 
the  overwhelming  pressure  not  to  appear  "differ- 
ent" from  the  working  class  in  spite  of  being 
political,  it  is  understandable  how,  in  the  absence 
of  brutally  clear  theoretical  training  and  under- 
standing, some  of  even  the  worst  characteristics 
of  seamen  would  mold  themselves  into  our  mem- 
bers. And  by  virtue  of  the  importance  of  this 
milieu  as  one  of  our  main  points  of  social 
support,  many  of  these  characteristics  began  to 
rub  off  on  the  party  membership  generally. 

One  of  the  consequences  of  this  negative  evo- 
lution was  the  eager  acceptance  of  the  1939  Res- 
olution on  the  Negro  Question  proposed  to  the 
National  Convention  by  Johnson.  It  was  an  in- 
tensely nationalistic  document,  advocating  the 
most  extreme  forms  of  self-determination  and 
racial  separation.  Although  it  was  not  adopted  by 
the  Convention  but  referred  to  the  National  Com- 
mittee, where  it  was  somewhat  modified,  the 
party  was  substantially  indoctrinated  by  this 
resolution. 

There  was,  from  the  beginning,  a  tendency  to 
ignore  the  problem  of  the  emancipation  of  wom- 
en. One  of  the  products  of  our  maritime  policy 
was  to  exacerbate  and  crystallize  this  tendency, 
whereby  the  party  completely  turned  its  back  on 
this  question  and  virtually  adopted  the  theory  and 
practice  of  male  supremacy. 

At  a  later  time,  their  dedication  to  women's 
liberation  was  probably  the  principal  reason  that 
the  Weiss  group  was  driven  out  of  the  party. 

Of  course,  when  the  movement  for  women's 
liberation  burst  forth,  the  party  was  willing  to 
jump  on  the  bandwagon;  but  it  brought  with  it 
an  opposite  tradition  and  inadequate  theory. 

By  the  time  the  women's  movement  got  un- 
derway, every  theoretically  capable  woman  leader 
in  the  party  who  had  not  already  submerged 
herself  to  purely  organizational  and/or  family 
duties  had  been  driven  out  of  the  party  or  quit. 

The  party  had  effectively  avoided  any  dis- 
cussions of  the  woman  question,  and  those 
women  who  had  been  concerned  with  the  subject 


were— one  way  or  the  other— kept  silent.  Evelyn 
Reed,  an  amateur  anthropologist  who  dabbled  in 
politics,  and  who  had  consistently  supported  the 
male  chauvinism  of  the  SWP  leadership  against 
women  concerned  with  the  development  of  revo- 
lutionary theory  on  the  "woman  question,"  was 
suddenly  projected  into  a  position  of  political 
leadership. 

The  SWP  therefore  could  approach  the  wom- 
en's liberation  movement  only  from  a  purely 
opportunistic  standpoint.  It  consistently  placed 
itself  at  the  service  of  the  liberal  wing  of  the 
women's  movement  in  opposition  to  every  at- 
tempt to  give  it  a  revolutionary,  proletarian  or 
socialist  orientation.  Its  cadres  thus  served  as  the 
socialist  cover  for  the  reformists.  This  corre- 
sponded to  the  SWP's  conviction  that  the  woman 
question  was  only  a  liberal  reformist  issue  and 
that  the  main  task  was  to  recruit  a  few  women 
from  the  movement  to  socialism,  rather  than  to 
advance  the  movement  toward  socialist  and  class 
consciousness. 

It  must  not  be  imagined  that  J. P.  Cannon  did 
not  become  aware  of  the  sad  state  of  affairs  in 
the  party  created  by  the  anti-theoretical  doctrine 
which  he  had  advanced.  In  a  conversation  with 
him  dealing  with  problems  of  our  maritime  work, 
I  mentioned  the  resistance  we  were  encountering 
in  moving  West  Coast  seamen  to  the  East  Coast 
where  they  were  desperately  needed.  His  only  re- 
mark was  "We  didn't  make  communists  out  of 
them." 

Jim  tried  to  begin  a  remedy  in  the  creation 
of  the  Trotsky  School,  designed  to  dignify  Marxist 
scholarship  in  the  party.  Every  year  a  group  of 
leading  activists  were  to  be  selected  for  a  six- 
month  study  course— full  time  and  at  party  ex- 
pense—on the  fundamentals  of  Marxist  Political 
Economy,  Dialectics  and  Historical  Materialism. 

Beginning  in  1946,  it  was,  indeed,  a  fine 
Marxist  school,  but  it  was  allowed  to  degenerate 
into  an  indoctrination  seminary  and  then  quietly 
passed  on.  It  had  no  profound  effect  on  the  party; 
it  was  too  little  and  too  late.  All  it  accomplished 
was  to  create  a  few  malcontents  who,  after  a 
rigorous  study  of  the  first  volume  of  Capital  and 
the  method  of  Historical  Materialism  and  re- 
search, realized  the  shallow  and  non-Marxist 
method  of  virtually  the  whole  party  leadership. 

It  had  a  profound  effect  on  me,  however,  and 
I  became  one  of  the  malcontents.  This  resulted  in 
a  fourteen-year  struggle  to  "reform"  the  party 
which,  along  with  others,  I  gave  up  as  hopeless. 


88 


From  Leadership  in  Black 
Liberation  to  Failure 

The  first  disastrous  effects  of  the  degen- 
erative process  I  have  described  were  to  be  felt 
during  the  period  from  1942  to  1948  around  the 
problem  of  assimilating  black  workers  into  the 
party. 

During  World  War  II  the  Trotskyists  were  the 
only  ones  who  did  not  desert  the  black  struggle. 
Most  prominently  the  CP,  which  had  always  held 
a  large  influence  in  the  ghetto,  was  most  treach- 
erous in  its  fanatical  support  of  the  war,  the 
government  and  the  demand  for  domestic  peace. 
They  renounced  and  even  condemned  all  struggle 
except  for  a  second  front  and  to  sell  war  bonds. 

Black  workers  were  demanding  a  piece  of  the 
war  industry  employment,  defending  themselves 
militantly  against  police  and  racist  attacks  in  the 
northern  cities  and  around  southern  army  bases, 
and  resisting  persecution  and  discrimination  in 
the  Army  and  Navy.  Almost  alone  among  the  so- 
cialist parties,  the  SWP  militantly  defended  them. 
Consequently  the  SWP  newspaper,  the  Militant, 
became  a  popular  paper  in  the  ghetto,  and  soon 
black  workers  and  some  professionals  began  to 
stream  into  the  party.  We  never  had  it  so  good. 

The  party  faced  two  basic  contradictions  as 
it  attempted  to  cope  with  this  development.  The 
first  was  in  Theory  and  Program.  The  party 
leadership  had  been  indoctrinated  in  the  1939 
resolution,  which  was  arrogantly  nationalistic, 
calling  for  self-determination  and  separation,  and 
characterizing  the  struggle  for  equality  as  refor- 
mist, and  implicitly  anti-revolutionary.  But  the 
blacks  coming  into  the  party  were  militant  inte- 
grationists  and  had  enough  of  separation,  and 
rightly  considered  the  demand  for  self-determina- 
tion to  be  a  justification  for  segregation. 

The  second  contradiction  was  in  the  realm  of 
Strategy  and  Tactics.  The  SWP,  having  substituted 
tactics  for  strategy,  developed  a  trade-unionistic 
conception  of  the  black  struggle.  We  had  been 
skillful  and  successful  in  trade  union  work,  and 
in  the  absence  of  a  concrete  analysis,  the  tactical 
and  strategic  problems  of  any  mass  struggle 
should  follow  the  trade  union  blueprint. 

I  shall  discuss  this  second  contradiction  first, 
because  if  we  had  solved  this  strategic-tactical 
problem  as  it  was  offered  to  us,  it  might  have 
eventually  overcome  the  deficiencies  in  Theory, 
Program  and  Social  Base. 

The  problem  arose  in  this  way:  A  prominent 
black  doctor  in  Detroit  had  been  awarded  a 


commission  in  the  Navy  on  the  basis  of  his 
professionial  qualifications,  never  having  seen 
him.  When  he  went  for  induction  the  Navy  took 
one  look  at  him  and  told  him  it  was  all  a  mistake. 
His  draft  board  then  ordered  him  inducted  into 
the  Army.  He  put  up  an  historical  fight  against  it 
and,  with  our  support  and  help,  won  the  case. 

He  became  our  foremost  spokesman  in  the 
black  community,  and  wrote  a  regular  column  in 
the  Militant  under  the  name  Jackson.  He  built  a 
tremendous  black  SWP  in  the  Detroit  ghetto, 
composed  principally  of  militant  workers.  I  don't 
know  if  anyone  knew  how  many  members  he 
had,  but  I  heard  estimates  as  high  as  "over  200." 

In  any  event,  he  wasn't  satisfied  that  the 
propagandistic  life  of  the  SWP,  supplemented  by 
union  politics,  was  adequate  for  this  formation, 
which  was  beginning  to  assume  the  charac- 
teristics of  a  mass  movement.  In  1946  he  came  to 
the  Political  Committee  with  the  proposal  to 
create  a  new  and  independent  black  movement 
for  the  day-to-day  struggle  for  equality.  The 
Political  Committee  referred  the  problem  to  the 
Trotsky  School  (held  at  the  Grass  Lake  Summer 
Camp  near  Detroit),  plus  all  N.C.  members 
visiting  the  camp  or  in  the  area. 

There  was  some  justification  for  this  change 
of  venue,  as  there  were  several  members  of  the 
N.C.  at  the  school  (including  myself),  the  director 
of  the  School,  William  Warde  [George  Novack], 
was  a  member  of  the  P.C.,  and  there  were  always 
N.C.  members  visiting  the  Camp.  However,  it  was 
characteristic  of  the  SWP  that  the  central 
leadership  almost  invariably  chose  to  have  very 
little  to  say  on  black  liberation,  abdicating  this 
responsibility  to  "specialists." 

The  meeting  was  quite  a  gathering.  Jackson 
made  his  proposal  and  the  roof  fell  in  on  him.  All 
the  brains  at  the  meeting  landed  on  him  with  the 
following  line:  We  predicted  correctly  in  the  early 
'30s  that,  as  the  working  class  began  to  come  to 
union  consciousness,  it  would  first  come  to  the 
traditional  and  established  organizations  in  the 
AFL.  They  did  just  that,  and  the  CIO  was  formed 
first  within  the  AFL.  While  we  had  a  correct 
evaluation  of  the  problem,  the  CP  was  hung  up 
with  their  dual-union  policy  of  Red  Trade  Unions. 

So,  they  said,  the  Negro  movement  will 
inevitably  go  to  the  NAACP  first,  and  your 
proposition  is  equivalent  to  the  Stalinist  Red 
Trade  Union  policy.  You  must  take  your  militants 
and  go  to  the  NAACP. 

There  were  three  black  members  at  the 
School,  but  none  of  them  nor  myself  had  a  word 


89 


to  say.  Myself,  because  I  didn't  know  enough 
about  it  to  have  an  expressible  position.  The 
black  comrades,  Joe  Morgan,  Milton  Richardson 
and  Ernie  Dillard,  were  probably  intimidated  by 
the  force  of  the  attack. 

I  was  very  uncomfortable  during  this 
discussion  and  the  trade-unionistic  tirade  by  the 
smart  ones,  and  determined  to  get  to  the  root  of 
the  problem,  which  I  found  could  be  done  if  you 
just  try  a  little.  The  fallacy  of  the  majority  opin- 
ion—although it  should  be  obvious— I  will  sum- 
marize here: 

1.  The  trade  union  movement  is  an  exclu- 
sively class  movement.  The  movement  for  black 
liberation  is  multi-class,  and  the  classes  have 
different  and  sometimes  opposing  interests. 

2.  The  working  class  movement  of  the  1930s 
was  a  movement  of  a  class  just  coming  into  ele- 
mentary consciousness  for  the  first  time  in 
modern  history.  The  movement  for  black  libera- 
tion has  been  in  almost  continuous  existence  in 
one  form  or  another  on  a  massive  scale  for  long 
over  a  century.  In  modern  times  witness  the 
Garvey  movement,  the  World  War  II  March  on 
Washington  Movement,  the  Black  Muslims,  CORE. 
None  of  these  messed  with  the  NAACP. 

3.  The  NAACP  is  and  always  has  been  a 
middle  class  movement  which  rarely  represented 
the  working  class  except  in  court.  (It  did, 
however,  during  the  class  upheaval  of  the  '30s, 
establish  a  good  reputation  among  auto  workers 
when  Walter  White— then  president  of  NAACP— 
pulled  the  black  workers  out  of  the  Ford- 
Dearborn  plant:  an  action  which  effectively  broke 
the  back  of  the  corporations'  resistance  to  union 
organization.)  In  spite  of  the  untiring  work  of 
Herbert  Hill  in  building  a  labor  department,  the 
NAACP  was  and  remains  the  property  of  and 
instrument  of  the  black  middle  class. 

It  was  exclusively  concerned  with  legal  prob- 
lems and  opposed  to  mass  action.  All  attempts  to 
"reform"  it  (mostly  by  radicals)  ended  in  disaster. 
It  took  the  Montgomery  bus  boycott  to  shake  it 
up  somewhat,  but  even  then  it  was  totally  inad- 
equate for  a  mass  movement.  This  is  why  Ran- 
dolph bypassed  it  in  the  formation  of  the  March 
on  Washington  Movement. 

In  1946  the  militant  workers  refused  to  go  to 
the  NAACP;  and,  although  Jackson  had  an  entire- 
ly legitimate  proposal,  and  had  the  forces  to 
begin  it,  at  least  on  a  local  scale,  he  was 
overwhelmed  by  the  obvious  majority  pressure 
and  gave  up.  He  left  the  party  soon  after  this  and 
his  movement  dispersed. 


Later  that  year,  when  I  had  had  time  to  think 
the  thing  out  a  bit,  I  made  a  protest  of  the  policy 
to  the  School.  I  was  greeted  with  silence.  Too 
little  and  too  late. 

Nearly  twenty  years  later  Jackson  came  to  a 
social  event  in  New  York  during  our  National 
Convention  in  1963.  This  was  at  the  height  of  the 
popularity  of  the  Black  Muslim  movement,  which 
the  SWP  was  courting.  I  recalled  that  Grass  Lake 
meeting  to  him,  saying  that  I  wished  we  had 
accepted  his  proposal,  particularly  in  light  of  the 
Muslim  development,  which  merely  filled  the 
vacuum  created  by  our  failure.  He  said,  "Yes,  it 
is  a  shame.  We  could  have  had  all  that." 

Theory  and  Politics 

Our  movement  held  itself  together  through 
years  of  adversity  and  persecution  by  the  pro- 
fundity of  Trotsky's  writings,  the  best  expression 
of  Marxist  theory  of  the  era. 

However,  we  were  never  able  to  open  up 
Marxism  to  the  black  revolutionaries.  When  con- 
fronted with  our  proposition  that  the  problems  of 
race  relations  in  the  U.S.  could  be  solved  through 
racial  separation,  they  said— if  that's  Marxism,  it's 
not  for  me. 

So,  even  while  many  were  coming  in,  many 
were  always  going  out. 

Black  Nationalism  Abets 
White  Chauvinism 

However,  the  nationalist  theory  had  other 
negative  results.  It  would  be  no  discovery  to  ob- 
serve that  the  white  working  class  is  saturated 
with  race  prejudice.  However,  on  occasion,  either 
in  the  necessity  of  class  solidarity  in  struggle  or 
in  profound  conviction  of  the  need  for  revolution- 
ary change  toward  socialism,  the  militant  white 
worker  is  prepared  to  rid  himself  of  this  obnox- 
ious and  self-destructive  prejudice.  But  when  you 
tell  him  that  racial  separation  is  a  necessary  part 
of  the  class  struggle,  this  gives  him  an  opportu- 
nity to  hold  on  to  his  prejudice  as  a  virtue.  This 
has  happened. 

Probably  the  most  disastrous  of  all  the  con- 
sequences of  the  nationalist  theory  was  in  the 
problem  of  interracial  marriage.  The  party  operat- 
ed upon  the  following  theorem:  If  the  black 
movement  will,  when  it  matures,  become  a 
nationalist-separatist  and  anti-white  movement 
(like  the  Garvey  movement),  any  black  revolu- 
tionary who  marries  whites  will  be  ostracized. 

During  the  years  under  consideration,  1942- 
48,  ours  was  an  interracial  party,  and  in  these 


90 


circumstances  close  personal  relations  developed 
interracially,  both  in  the  organization  and  its 
periphery.  Such  relations  sometimes  easily  devel- 
oped into  marriage.  The  leadership  did  everything 
it  could  to  discourage  this  practice,  from  friendly 
reasoning,  to  pleading,  to  pressure  and  social 
ostracism. 

Milton  Richardson,  our  candidate  for  Gov- 
ernor or  Lieutenant  Governor  in  one  of  our  post- 
war elections  in  New  York,  married  white.  She 
was  socially  ostracized  and  he  was  highly  pres- 
sured. He  finally  left  the  country  a  broken  man. 

Joe  Morgan  was  hounded  out  of  the  Party. 

Louise  Simpson,  candidate  for  New  York 
Lieutenant  Governor  in  about  1944,  married  a 
white  sympathizer.  When  persuasion  was  to  no 
avail,  harassment  began,  and  became  so  intol- 
erable that  the  husband  threatened  to  go  to  the 
NAACP  with  a  grievance.  Jim  finally  told  one  of 
the  offenders  in  the  leadership  to  for  Christ's  sake 
leave  those  kids  alone.  Finally,  at  the  1949 
Convention,  an  announcement  was  made  by  the 
N.C.— through  the  presidium— that  the  SWP  does 
not  oppose  interracial  marriage.  The  damage, 
however,  had  already  been  done.  It  was  just  too 
little  and  just  too  late. 

When  Dobbs'  daughter  married  Clifton 
DeBerry  and  finally  moved  to  New  York,  they 
were,  of  course,  tolerated,  and  probably  escaped 
the  pressures  exerted  upon  other  like  couples. 
However,  this  occurrence  did  not  ameliorate  the 
problem  in  New  York  to  any  appreciable  degree, 
even  spreading  westward  when  Tom  Kerry 
invaded  Los  Angeles  in  the  '50s— witness  the  case 
of  E.  Banks. 

Under  the  impact  of  all  of  these  factors,  our 
black  membership  eroded.  False  strategic  con- 
cepts, false  theory  and  program  made  it  impos- 
sible for  the  SWP  to  change  its  social  base,  a 
factor  which  might  have  prevented  the  ultimate 
degeneration  which  eventually  overcame  it. 

As  a  result  of  accumulated  grievances  and 
frustrations  the  last  substantial  group  of  black 
members  left  in  anger  at  the  1948  Convention.  As 
Dobbs  expressed  it  to  me  (as  I  was  negotiating  to 
get  one  of  them  back),  "They  shit  on  the  floor  as 
they  left."  One  of  the  ironies  of  this  situation  was 
that  it  was  at  this  convention  that  the  first  res- 
olution on  the  black  struggle  which  made  any 
sense  was  adopted.  Johnson  had  just  come  back 
to  us  and  had  modified  his  1939  position  drasti- 
cally and  produced  a  fine  literary  document. 
However,  it  was  superimposed  upon  the  Party, 
and  bore  no  relation  to  the  real  problems  that  the 


Party  had  encountered  and  failed  to  solve.  While 
being  objectively  a  refutation  of  the  1939  resolu- 
tion, it  didn't  say  so;  we  never  disassociated 
ourselves  from  this  horrible  document.  Conse- 
quently most  of  the  leadership  and  the  old  timers 
in  general,  who  had  been  indoctrinated  in  the  old 
resolution,  saw  in  the  new  one  only  a  temporary 
tactical  compromise  with  the  overwhelming  mili- 
tancy of  the  movement  demanding  equality. 
There  were,  too,  a  few  statements  in  the  new  one 
justifying  this  view. 

Because  of  this,  I  at  one  time  erroneously 
laid  our  failures  to  this  resolution.  At  any  rate,  it 
also  was  too  little  and  too  late.  The  SWP  returned 
almost  to  its  original  pristine  purity  with  a  few 
dark-skinned  members  for  window  dressing. 

The  leadership  was  constantly  plagued  with 
demands  to  explain  the  loss  of  its  large  black 
cadre.  The  leaders  replied  with  a  series  of  bro- 
mides which  explained  nothing  and  were,  of 
course,  at  the  expense  of  the  dear  departed.  How- 
ever half-true  some  of  these  explanations  may 
have  been,  the  problems  and  experiences  I  have 
related  contain  the  basic  truth. 

The  Bitter  End 

The  substitution  of  Doctrine  for  Theory,  Or- 
ganization for  Strategy,  Tactics  for  Program,  and 
the  continued  narrowness  of  social  base  had  a 
cumulative  effect  on  the  SWP.  In  the  mass  move- 
ment we  rarely  had  an  independent  policy,  and 
the  prolonged  blocs  with  anti-communists— 
Lundberg,  Paul  Hall,  Reuther,  Curran,  Roerback, 
etc.— led  us  into  opportunistic  phases. 

Adventurism  soon  followed,  destroying  our 
forces  as  we  tried  to  extricate  ourselves  from 
compromising  positions.  The  notable  exception 
was  in  the  UAW,  where  opportunism  continued 
unabated.  Cochran,  the  mentor  of  this  work,  suc- 
cumbed to  the  prevailing  tendency  of  the  old-time 
militants  of  the  '30s  to  continue  to  maneuver 
between  power  blocs  and  take  it  easy  politically. 
This  led  to  the  formation  of  a  politically  liqui- 
dationist  tendency  which  destroyed  our  UAW 
work  in  a  split. 

These  cycles  of  opportunism  and  adventurism 
resulted  in  eventual  disaster  in  the  mass  move- 
ment and  had  a  conservatizing  political  effect  on 
the  Party  policy,  which  finally  came  to  rest  in  its 
present  condition:  political  opportunism,  a  fetish 
for  legalism,  and  a  demand  for  conformity  and 
respectability  replaced  the  class  struggle. 

The  national  disaster  was  intimately  related 
to  the  collapse  of  the  Party's  revolutionary  inter- 


91 


national  outlook,  as  revealed  most  of  all  by  its 
approach  to  the  Chinese  Revolution.  This 
revolution  was  the  longest  and  most  bitterly 
contested  civil  war  of  the  modern  era,  beginning 
as  a  proletarian  revolution  (1925),  retreated  into 
an  anti-imperialist  war  with  the  Japanese 
invasion  (1931),  but  re-emerging  in  a  victorious 
proletarian  revolution  in  1949. 

Mao  Tse-tung  was  in  both  overt  and  covert 
opposition  to  Comintern  policy,  beginning  in 
1927  (he  was  thrice  expelled  or  suspended  from 
the  Central  Committee).  Finally,  in  1935,  he 
gained  ascendancy  and  finished  a  process  of  re- 
making the  Communist  Party  along  Leninist  lines. 

This  was  the  formula  for  the  final  victory— an 
essentially  de-Stalinized  Communist  Party. 

However,  the  SWP,  unable  to  analyze  theo- 
retically and  concretely  the  revolutionary  current 
in  the  U.S.— black  liberation— was  hardly  in  a 
position  to  do  so  with  far-away  China.  Thus  it 
was  forced  to  rely  upon  doctrine.  Its  guide  was 
the  Resolution  of  the  founding  Congress  of  the 
Fourth  International  (1938)  on  "The  War  in  the 
Far  East  and  the  Revolutionary  Perspectives." 

However,  this  document,  not  written  by 
Trotsky,  was  basically  false,  including  gross 
misrepresentations  of  the  actual  developments  in 
China.  Alleging  that  the  "Stalinist"  leaders  had 
turned  this  grandiose  agrarian  movement,  despite 
its  historic  battles,  back  into  the  fold  of  the 
Kuomintang,  the  key  passage  is  as  follows: 

"What  remained  of  the  Chinese  Communist 
Party  after  Chiang  Kai-shek's  forceful  liquidation 
of  the  peasant  Soviets,  has  publicly  surrendered 
the  last  remnants  of  its  revolutionary  policy  in 
order  to  enter  a  'People's  Anti-Japanese  Front' 
with  the  hangman  of  the  Chinese  revolution.  The 
Chinese  Stalinists  have  formally  liquidated 'Soviet 
China,'  handed  over  to  Chiang  Kai-shek  the 
remnants  of  the  peasant  Red  armies,  openly  re- 
nounced the  agrarian  struggle,  explicitly  aban- 
doned the  class  interests  of  the  workers.  Publicly 
embracing  the  petty  bourgeois  doctrines  of  Sun 
Yat-sen,  they  have  proclaimed  themselves  the 
gendarmes  of  private  property  and,  in  conformity 
with  Stalinist  practice  everywhere,  the  enemies  of 
the  revolution." 

The  monstrous  lies  and  distortions  of  this  key 
statement  are  too  obvious  for  comment  in  this 
article,  and,  irrespective  of  the  fact  that  its 
author,  John  Liang  [Frank  Glass] ,  later  essentially 
repudiated  this  thesis,  the  SWP  has  remained 
glued  to  it  in  their  constantly-reiterated  Hate 
China  campaign. 


Vietnam  and  China 

The  total  misunderstanding  of  the  Chinese 
Revolution  could  not  help  but  reflect  itself  in  the 
practical  work  of  the  Party.  This  was  most  obvi- 
ous in  the  SWP's  refusal  to  give  public  support  to 
the  Vietnamese  Revolution.  The  SWP/YSA 
expended  enormous  energy  in  the  service  of  paci- 
fism around  the  slogan  "Bring  the  Troops  Home 
Now."  But  they  would  never  face  up  to  the  basic 
question  of  whose  side  are  you  on?  They  flatly 
rejected  the  proposition  that  it  was  our  political 
duty  to  proclaim  that  WE  ARE  FOR  THE  VIC- 
TORY OF  THE  NATIONAL  LIBERATION  FRONT, 
THEIR  CAUSE  IS  JUST.  Among  other  objections, 
they  said  it  would  be  against  Trotsky's  "Pro- 
letarian Military  Policy,"  worked  out  for  World 
War  II. 

I  recall  a  heated  debate  on  this  subject.  I 
don't  remember  whether  it  was  at  the  1965  Con- 
vention or  at  the  N.C.  Plenum  where  they  boiled 
me  in  oil.  I  tried  to  explain  that  we  couldn't  fall 
back  on  the  old  doctrine  for  WW  II  because  this 
was  a  different  kind  of  war.  I  was  refuted  by  M. 
Alvin,  who  accused  me  of  trying  to  make  WW  II 
look  good  (implying  that  I  was  moving  toward 
the  Stalinist  supportive  position  on  WW  II).  I 
mention  this  because  it  was  typical  of  the  SWP 
leadership,  when  confronted  by  political  criticism, 
to  label  or  insinuate  something  sinister  about  the 
criticism  and  the  critic. 

It  was  proposed  by  a  minority  in  1966,  I 
believe,  that  we  adopt  Lenin's  policy  of  revolu- 
tionary defeatism,  which  would  demand  that  we 
come  out  openly  for  the  victory  of  the  NLF.  They 
would  have  none  of  it.  However,  I  am  not  over- 
come with  sympathy  for  this  formulation.  In  real- 
ity the  situation  was  not  so  complicated.  When 
workers  are  on  strike  and  the  National  Guard  is 
called  in,  one  doesn't  have  to  be  a  Marxist- 
Leninist  to  determine  whose  side  one  is  on.  All  it 
requires  is  a  little  bit  of  class  solidarity. 

Likewise,  when  an  imperialist  army  invades 
a  colonial  country  struggling  for  independence 
and  freedom,  it  is  over-dignifying  the  shabby 
politics  of  the  SWP  to  have  to  go  to  doctrine  to 
become  a  partisan  of  the  NLF.  All  that  is  required 
to  take  this  elementary  dignified  course  is  more 
elementary,  and  a  quality  that  the  SWP  has  lost— a 
sense  of  solidarity  with  the  oppressed. 

Many  young  revolutionaries  who  have  experi- 
enced the  SWP  only  in  its  recent  years  of  degen- 
eration didn't  like  the  way  the  Party  operated 
organizationally  (they  certainly  have  a  point 
there),  and  tend  to  concentrate  their  attention  on 


92 


this  aspect  of  the  problem. 

This  is  a  one-sided  approach,  however,  the 
organizational  question  being  basically  derivative. 
The  fate  of  SDS  should  sound  a  warning.  I  do  not 
mean  to  say  that  the  organization  question  will 
solve  itself,  and  will  flow  automatically  from 
higher  principles.  There  is  much  legitimately  to 
be  said  about  what  we  want  a  new  party  to  look 
like  organizationally,  especially  in  contrast  to  the 
old  ones.  Problems  of  freedom  of  discussion  and 
criticism,  the  right  to  challenge,  public  discussion 
of  party  problems,  personal  relations  between 


members,  educational  principles  and  methods,  the 
sanctity  of  leadership,  and  all  the  criteria  of 
organization,  deserve  special  examination. 

There  is  one  thing  for  sure,  however.  Nearly 
every  Marxist-oriented  organization  claims  to 
operate  on  the  basis  of  Leninism:  democratic 
centralism.  But  in  all  cases  every  principle  of 
Leninism  has  been  turned  upside-down  and 
wrongside-out,  until  its  basic  tenets  have  been 
buried.  Leninism  must  be  re-discovered  and— if 
found  adaptable  to  our  problems  and  conditions- 
adapted  and  used. 


On  Transitional  Organizations 


This  excerpt  from  a  29  May  1983  letter  written  to  Spartacist  LeagueAJ-S. 
Central  Committee  member  Deborah  Maguire  is  taken  from  the  SL's  Internal 
Discussion  Bulletin  whole  No.  41,  August  1983. 


A  few  days  ago  I  wrote  one  letter  on  the 
Black/Labor  project  and  discarded  it.  I  had  been 
confused  about  what,  essentially,  this  first 
experimental  stage  is.  I  was  misled  by  the  idea  of 
a  "transitional,"  multi-ethnic  organization. 

The  organization  adheres  to  the  full  party 
program.  This  is  too  narrow  a  base  for  a  transi- 
tional organization,  except  in  a  very  narrow 
sense.  A  transitional  organization,  in  the  sense 
that  the  Old  Man  taught,  requires  a  transitional 
program.  We  start  from  the  present  mass  con- 
sciousness, with  its  immediate  demands,  and 
build  a  programmatic  bridge  toward  the  ultimate 
demands.  Labor/Black  may  be  adequate  for  the 
present,  because  it  obviously  reflects  what  you 
have.  But  if  you  intend  a  multi-ethnic  organiza- 
tion that  designation  will  not  attract  the  Latino 
militants. 

To  me,  what  it  adds  up  to  is  that  you  are 
really  assembling  a  non-  (party)  membership  black 
cadre.  This  is  not  a  bad  first  step.  The  radical 
blacks  are  the  key  to  a  broader  really  transitional 
organization. 

We  were  on  the  verge  of  such  a  development 
in  1946.  During  the  war  and  immediately  after, 
we  never  had  it  so  good.  The  CP  had  deserted  the 
field,  and  could  not  come  back  except  with  the 
Progressive  Party.  So,  we  had  the  black  cadre,  at 
least  in  New  York,  where  I  was  organizer  of  the 
Chelsea  Branch  off  and  on  for  some  years,  Los 
Angeles,  and  Detroit.  I  was  able  to  spend  2  sum- 
mers at  the  Grass  Lake  Camp  which  is  near  De- 
troit, where  we  had  a  fabulous  black  movement. 
It  was  led  by  (Dr.)  Ed  Keemer  (Jackson  in  the 
Militant).  He  proposed  to  the  Political  Committee 
that  he  be  authorized  to  launch  an  independent 
organization  to  fight  against  discrimination, 
racism,  etc.  The  question  was  referred  to  a  group 
of  NC  members  in  the  Midwest,  and  to  the 
Trotsky  School,  which  contained  3  NC  members. 

Keemer  made  his  proposal,  and  the  brains 
went  to  work  on  him.  The  principal  argument 
with  which  they  destroyed  his  proposal  was  that 


the  black  workers,  when  they  reached  a  social 
consciousness,  would  move  to  the  NAACP— just  as 
the  working  class  first  moved  to  the  AF  of  L  as 
they  developed  consciousness. 

The  three  black  comrades— Milton  Richard- 
son, Joe  Morgan,  Ernie  Dillard— and  myself  just 
sat  there  like  wooden  Indians  selling  cigars.  If 
learning  from  failure  and  error  is  really  so  great, 
I  ought  to  be  smartened  up  pretty  good,  for  I 
have  had  my  share  of  both.  My  failure  at  that 
time  was  largely  just  ignorance,  but  also  partly  a 
too  great  respect  for  my  betters,  so  to  speak. 

That  episode  disturbed  me.  I  had  an  ugly 
feeling  that  everybody  except  Keemer  had  been 
wrong,  but  I  didn't  know  why.  I  decided  to  try  to 
analyze  why  I  had  that  feeling,  and  when  I  real- 
ized that  the  brains  had,  indeed,  been  wrong,  I 
brought  it  up  in  the  school,  asking  that  we  find 
some  way  of  getting  the  decision  against  Keemer 
reversed.  I  didn't  get  much  response,  but  George 
Novack  finally  agreed  to  present  my  ideas  to  the 
P.C.  Of  course,  nothing  came  of  it. 

Virtually  the  entire  black  cadre  disappeared 
within  a  very  few  years.  This  was  partly  because 
of  the  fundamentally  nationalist-separatist  feel- 
ings of  most  of  the  leading  white  people,  who 
had  been  indoctrinated  by  C.L.R.  James  in  his  na- 
tionalist period.  After  he  changed  his  mind,  he 
hadn't  admitted  an  error,  but  just  quietly  slid 
over  into  the  opposite,  as  though  there  were  no 
contradiction.  Consequently,  the  indoctrination 
remained  intact.  The  desertion  of  the  black  com- 
rades was  also  caused  by  the  fact  that  the  strictly 
political  activity  of  the  party  was  too  narrow  a 
framework  for  them— they  required  action  on 
pressing  problems. 

It  wasn't  until  years  later  that  I  realized  that 
the  basic  element  in  the  NAACP  argument,  which 
had  been  put  forward  by  all  the  leading  people, 
was  that  they  couldn't  believe  or  admit  to  the 
maturity  of  the  existing  consciousness  among  the 
hundreds  and  thousands  of  blacks,  who  were  mil- 
itantly  pressing  toward  integration.  They  con- 


93 


94 


sidered  blacks  to  be  still  without  consciousness 
until  they  developed  a  nationalist  consciousness. 

Nearly  20  years  later  Ed  Keemer  showed  up 
at  a  social  function  during  the  1963  convention 
in  New  York.  The  Black  Muslims  were  at  the 
height  of  their  popularity,  and  that  was  what  the 
convention  was  all  about.  Needless  to  say,  my 
resolution  on  Revolutionary  Integration  didn't  get 
much  of  a  play.  That's  putting  it  mildly:  I  was 
slaughtered. 

I  talked  to  Ed  Keemer,  told  him  how  I  had 
felt  about  having  remained  silent  during  the  dis- 
cussion of  his  proposal  in  1946.  He  said,  rather 
wistfully,  alluding  to  the  void  that  the  Black  Mus- 
lims had  stepped  into— "We  could  have  had  all 
that." 

If  he  was  correct  in  1963,  and  I  suspect  that 
he  was,  similar  prospects  may  be  in  store  today. 
However,  the  problem  is  more  complex.  At  that 
time,  the  black  workers  were  about  the  only  ones 
in  motion.  Today  the  key  to  organization  of  the 
oppressed  minorities,  lies  principally  between 
black  and  Chicano,  here  in  the  West,  and  I  sus- 
pect that  a  similar  relation  problem  exists  with 
Puerto  Riquenos. 

In  this  situation,  while  it  may  not  be  possible 
to  build  a  genuinely  multi-ethnic  organization 
right  away,  it  is  wrong  to  close  the  door  on  it, 
which  I  believe  the  Labor/Black  designation  does. 

The  problem  of  Black/Chicano  relations  is 
complicated  by  matters  of  principle.  Chicano  con- 
sciousness developed  very  late,  but  having  lain 
quiescent  for  so  long,  it  came  on  strong.  This 
consciousness  has  been  and  will  probably  con- 
tinue to  be  somewhat  nationalistic— as  is  the  case 
with  native  Americans. 

While  there  is  quite  sufficient  common 
ground  to  make  a  unified  movement  possible, 
there  are  important  points  of  conflict.  When  the 
Chicano  movement  began  to  assert  itself,  it  was 
confronted  with  the  results  of  the  years  of  pres- 


sure exerted  by  the  demands.  They  did  not  take 
kindly  to  much  of  the  integrationist  achieve- 
ments. They  have  adopted  a  spirit  of  passive 
resistance  to  school  integration,  for  instance, 
asking  only  for  bi-lingual  teaching,  while  the 
Indians  loudly  advance  counter-proposals. 

A  not  unimportant  factor  in  this  conflict  is 
the  fact  that  blacks  had  been  awarded  most  of  the 
social  service  jobs  in  minority  communities.  The 
Latinos  were  thus  deprived  of  being  serviced  by 
their  own,  which  handicapped  them  in  their  rela- 
tions with  the  agencies.  Not  only  that,  but  those 
jobs  were  considered  to  be  plums  in  the  ghetto 
and  barrio. 

The  lack  of  sensitivity  to  black  problems  is 
illustrated  by  the  most  prominent  Chicano  candi- 
date for  City  Council  in  the  local  election  here, 
who  has  as  his  campaign  manager  the  fellow  who 
was  attorney  for  the  Bus  Stop  organization  a  year 
or  so  ago. 

I  recall  one  experience  I  had  here  in  LA 
before  I  left  for  Seattle  in  1956.  The  CP  had  an 
organization  a  little  similar  to  the  one  that  you 
propose,  called  the  Southeast  Interracial  Council, 
I  think.  It  was  about  evenly  divided  between 
black  and  white,  the  whites  being  either  CP  func- 
tionaries or  middle-class  types.  I  became  active  in 
it  in  about  1955,  and  remained  so  until  I  left. 
Their  interest  was  mainly  in  legislative  matters. 
We  went  on  lobbying  trips  to  Sacramento  to  pro- 
test racist  and  McCarthyite  bills  before  the  As- 
sembly and  Senate.  Other  local  actions  largely 
pertaining  to  legislative  problems.  My  principal 
interest  was  to  pick  up  a  couple  of  contacts, 
which  I  did.  I  had  planned  that  once  integrated 
in  the  organization,  I  would  begin  an  opposition 
to  their  absorption  with  legislative  matters,  etc., 
but  I  left  for  Seattle  before  I  could  do  that.  I 
contacted  the  (black)  secretary  of  the  organi- 
zation after  I  returned  here  in  1969  (?).  They  are 
immersed  in  the  Southside  Democratic  Clubs. 


To  the  Democratic  Socialists  of  America 


This  18  June  1983  letter  to  Stanley  Aronowitz,  a  leading  supporter  of  the  DSA,  is 
edited  from  a  xeroxed  copy  found  in  Dick  Fraser's  personal  papers.  Fraser  sent  a 
xerox  of  the  letter  to  DSAer  Dorothy  Healey.  Here  we  include  a  page  of  the 
manuscript  which  we  were  unable  to  locate  for  the  first  printing  of  this  bulletin. 


According  to  the  eminent  existentialist  phi- 
losopher Walter  Matthau,  the  greatest  thing  in 
life  is  winning  at  the  horse  races.  (That's  the 
Gospel  according  to  Damon  Runyon  Chapter  1:1. 
For  myself,  it  is  real  greatness  when  the  horse  is 
one  that  nobody  else  likes;  everybody  thinks  he's 
a  dog  and  he  goes  off  at  10  to  1  or  better.) 
Matthau  goes  on  to  say  that  the  next  greatest 
thing  in  life  is  losing  at  the  horse  races.  (Ch.  1:2.) 
However,  for  those  of  us  who  are  a  bit  politically 
inclined,  and  don't  get  to  the  track  all  that  often, 
if  the  greatest  thing  in  life  is  listening  to  Stanley 
Aronowitz  lecture  on  Marxism,  the  next  greatest 
thing  is  when  he  makes  an  error.  And  since  I  am 
a  fan  of  yours,  the  next  greatest  thing  should  be 
if  you  are  able  to  point  out  the  error  (or  errors) 
which  I  now  will  do,  to  find  out  if  it  is  indeed  the 
third  greatest  thing  in  life. 

I  choose  the  first  time  I  heard  you  speak: 
something  about  ideological  trends,  and  your 
most  recent  talk  on  the  crisis  of  Marxism. 

The  first  one  is  memorable  for  me,  not  only 
because  the  error,  though  a  minor  one,  has  stuck 
in  my  mind  for  these  several  years,  but  also 
because  it  was  the  occasion  on  which  I  formally 
introduced  my  dear  friend  Roberta  to  our  way  of 
thinking.  She  had  been  through  feminism  a  few 
years  ago,  was  something  of  a  mystic,  and  was 
becoming  a  nurse.  It  is  my  good  fortune,  that 
having  spent  the  last  six  years  under  the  rule  of 
the  medical  profession  in  its  present  barbaric 
state,  that  I  can  number  among  my  few  personal 
friends  some  of  the  nurses  who  have  had  to  put 
up  with  me  in  the  various  hospitals  in  which  I 
have  been  confined.  You  may  be  gratified  to 
know  that  since  that  lecture,  Roberta  has  become 
more  than  a  casual  sympathizer  of  our  way. 

At  any  rate,  the  point  is,  that  during  the 
course  of  your  lecture  you  asserted  that  the 
function  of  the  Reformation  was  to  make  religion 
a  private  matter.  I  was  shocked,  because  I  had 
come  to  realize  that  you  were  not  only  our  most 


entertaining  lecturer,  but  that  you  had  a  deep 
insight  into  contemporary  problems,  and  had  an 
extraordinary  knowledge  of  Marxism.  Well,  Marx 
and  Engels  didn't  think  that  way  about  the  Refor- 
mation. I  have  lost  nearly  all  of  my  old  library, 
but  I  believe  that  the  whole  subject  is  dealt  with 
at  least  in  the  Marx-Engels  correspondence,  if 
nowhere  else. 

What  you  say  may  have  been  one  of  the  mo- 
tives of  the  Lutheran  Reformation,  exemplified 
by  the  doctrine  of  the  priesthood  of  all  believers. 
However,  there  was  little  or  no  practice  of  this 
doctrine  in  the  actual  German  Reformation, 
which  failed  miserably.  Luther  left  religion  in  the 
tender  hands  of  the  petty  princes,  Protestant  and 
Catholic,  who  devastated  Germany  for  a  couple 
of  centuries  in  the  religious  wars,  in  which  the 
religion  of  the  miserable  subjects  was  automati- 
cally changed  with  the  victory  of  one  or  another 
prince.  There  was  no  religious  privacy  in  that 
Reformation. 

According  to  Marx  and  Engels  you  are  wrong 
essentially.  The  historic  task  of  the  Reformation 
was  to  break  the  international  stranglehold  of  the 
Church  on  all  European  society,  which  prevented 
the  emergence  of  autonomous  national  states  to 
serve  as  vehicles  for  the  production  and  distribu- 
tion of  commodities.  The  Calvinist  Reformation 
did  just  this:  it  first  achieved  mastery  at  Geneva; 
there  followed  the  great  Dutch  Revolution,  creat- 
ing the  first  capitalist  state  in  Europe;  overthrew 
a  "barbaric  feudalism"  in  Scotland;  unsuccessful 
in  France,  the  Huguenots  nevertheless  forced  a 
break  with  the  Pope  and  permitted  France  at  least 
to  achieve  political  autonomy;  established  the 
parties  of  the  Great  Rebellion  in  Britain,  which 
in  turn  laid  the  foundation  for  the  French  Revo- 
lution, which  did  not  end  the  international  sov- 
ereignty of  the  Pope,  but  assured  the  victory  of 
the  bourgeoisie. 

When  I  studied  the  Reformation,  I  found  very 
little  of  the  making  of  religion  a  private  matter  in 


95 


96 


the  Calvinist  church.  The  main  feature  of  that 
church  was  its  function  as  a  revolutionary  ma- 
chine. It  comprised  the  total  organization  of  the 
population  against  Popery  and  in  nationalism  and 
for  capitalist  morality.  All  piety  and  morality,  far 
from  being  private  matters,  were  rigidly  moni- 
tored by  the  church  hierarchy. 


Now,  for  your  thought-provoking  lecture  on 
the  crisis  of  Marxism.  I  found  myself  in  basic 
agreement  with  the  main  thrust  of  your  thesis  as 
I  understood  it.  Whether  it  is  a  crisis  of  Marxism 
or  a  crisis  of  Marxists  and  their  organizations,  I 
confess  I  haven't  made  up  my  mind.  It  is  quite 
true  that  neither  classical  Marxism  nor  the  Marx- 
ism of  Lenin  and  Trotsky  has  given  anything  to 
many  of  the  critical  problems  which  have  arisen 
today,  and  around  which  new  movements  tend  to 
arise.  I  believe  that  this  is  both  because  of  the 
particular  stage  of  capitalist  decline  in  which  we 
live  and  because  of  historical  peculiarity.  On  the 
other  hand  Marx,  in  adapting  Hegelian  logic  to 
materialist  philosophy,  political  economy  and 
history,  has  given  us  quite  fine  methodological 
tools — the  best  that  I  know  of — to  deal  with  social 
reality. 

In  my  opinion  the  trouble  with  Marxists  has 
been  that  they  have  refused,  or  have  been  unable, 
to  use  these  tools  in  concrete  analysis.  They  have 
become  largely  dependent  upon  existing  doctrine, 
and  attempt  by  deductive  logic  to  determine  the 
shape  of  existing  reality.  Existing  doctrine,  as  you 
have  observed,  doesn't  treat  with  many  present- 
day  problems.  This  does  surely  bring  in  a  crisis  of 
doctrine,  but  I  don't  believe  it  overthrows  the 
methodology  which  has  been  left  us  by  the 
masters  if  we  choose  to  use  it. 

I  am  mainly  concerned  with  one  specific 
problem  which  illustrates  the  limitations  of 
modern  Marxists.  I  was  disappointed  that  in  your 
description  of  the  areas  of  present  social  conflict 
which  have  precipitated  an  upsurge  of  semi- 
proletarian  movement  in  the  country  (and  to  an 
extent  in  the  world  generally),  areas  where 
guidance  from  Marxism  is  lacking,  you  did  not 
single  out  the  question  of  race  as  the  most  critical 
— which  I  believe  it  to  be. 

Modern  history  has  demonstrated,  particu- 
larly in  the  great  Russian  and  Chinese  revolu- 
tions, that  great  historical  transformations  in  the 
present  capitalist  world  may  be  achieved  not 
because  of  the  orderly  evolution  of  capitalism  and 
the  class  struggle.  The  advancement  of  capitalist 


economic  decline  may  accumulate  crises  which 
become  the  motive  forces  of  revolution.  But  in 
opposition  to  this  normality,  some  historical 
transformations  have  come  about  because  of 
national  historical  peculiarities.  This  will 
probably  be  the  case  in  the  U.S.  The  most  impor- 
tant peculiarity — and  the  one  which  reveals  a 
basic  weakness  and  contradiction  here — is  racial 
structure,  which  overlays  the  class  structure, 
distorting  it. 

Marxism  has  given  virtually  nothing  to  this 
problem  which  would  enable  us  to  understand 
and  cope  with  it.  It  is  not  that  Marxists  have  had 
nothing  to  say  on  this  question.  On  the  contrary, 
our  libraries  and  bookstores  are  loaded  with  what 
Marxists  have  had  to  say.  The  limitation  of  Marx- 
ists has  been  that  on  the  basic  theoretical  level, 
they  have,  for  the  most  part,  written  little  but 
worthless  claptrap.  They  have  done  more  to  ob- 
scure the  nature  of  the  problem  than  the  authors 
of  the  racist  doctrine. 

Well,  under  separate  cover  I  am  sending  you 
what  I  wrote  30  years  ago  on  this  matter.  May  I 
say  with  becoming  Trotskyist  modesty  that  it  was 
and  remains  the  only  definitive  materialist  anal- 
ysis of  the  whole  race  question  in  the  U.S.  It 
represents  what  a  working  person  (a  "raw  work- 
er" as  Rose  Karsner  categorized  me  when  I  first 
joined  the  movement)  who  became  a  largely  self- 
educated  scholar  can  do  with  the  tools  which  the 
masters  have  left. 

Partly  because  of  some  experiences  I  had  had, 
after  1946  I  became  dissatisfied  with  everything 
that  both  the  Communist  movement  and  ours  had 
to  say  on  this  subject,  and  this  challenged  me  to 
find  out  the  truth.  I  ignored  everything  that 
Marxists  had  written  on  this  subject.  They  had 
for  me  done  already  too  much  to  obscure  it.  I 
studied  the  black  scholars,  of  whom  there  was  a 
whole  galaxy  in  the  early  part  of  this  century.  I 
merely  attempted,  and  I  believe  successfully,  to 
synthesize  their  basic  thoughts,  adding  only  a 
little  of  my  own  and  of  my  one  collaborator.  I 
did  not  document  the  work — I  wasn't  enough  of 
a  scholar  for  that — but  that  is  its  only  defect.  No 
black  militant  has  ever  read  it  or  given  me  an 
audience  who  has  not  identified  with  it.  Not 
many  white  radicals  think  much  of  it,  because 
they  seem  to  have  been  steeped  either  in  Stalin's 
bureaucratic  edict  for  a  black  state  in  the  cotton 
belt  or  C.L.R.  James'  Marcus  Garveyism  of  1939. 
I  have  found  the  black  nationalism  of  white 
radicals  to  be  a  most  poignant  expression  of  the 
theoretical  poverty  of  the  movement. 


97 


Anyway,  I  would  appreciate  very  much  if  you 
would  take  time  to  read  it  and  honor  me  with  a 
comment. 


In  that  lecture  there  were  two  statements, 
entirely  peripheral  to  the  main  thesis,  which  got 
to  me  like  a  sharp  stick  in  the  eye. 

I.  You  discussed  the  bureaucratic  degener- 
ation of  the  Russian  Revolution,  saying  words  to 
the  effect  that  you  didn't  know  what  caused 
it — but  that  Trotsky's  analysis  had  been  wrong. 
You  didn't  elaborate  that,  which  makes  it  difficult 
to  cope  with,  but  I  believe  you  meant  it  seriously, 
so  I  have  to  take  it  at  face  value. 

By  no  means  do  I  subscribe  to  everything  that 
Trotsky  wrote  or  said.  However,  his  analysis  of 
the  process  of  bureaucratization  of  the  Party, 
Soviet  and  the  Comintern  is  probably  the  most 
important  thing  that  he  ever  wrote  except  The 
History  of  the  Russian  Revolution,  and  I  don't 
think  deserves  to  be  brushed  off  by  a  more  or  less 
off-hand  remark. 

This  analysis  described  the  phenomenon  (a 
classical  one)  of  the  triumph  of  the  counterrevo- 
lution in  the  name  of  the  revolution.  Over  the 
years  Trotsky  compared  in  detail  the  successive 
stages  of  the  reaction  with  that  of  the  French 
Revolution,  identifying  the  rise  of  Stalinism  with 
the  fall  of  Robespierre  and  the  destruction  of  the 
Jacobins,  and  the  stages  of  reaction — the  Director- 
ate, First  Consul,  Napoleon's  Empire,  and  finally 
the  restoration  of  the  Bourbon  monarchy.  There 
was  a  controversy  surrounding  the  final  product 
of  the  Russian  reaction:  did  not  the  final  restora- 
tion in  France  indicate  the  road  that  the  Soviet 
Union  was  traveling — toward  the  restoration  of 
capitalism?  Trotsky  defeated  this  argument  with 
the  demonstration  that  the  restored  monarchy 
had  been  an  essentially  bourgeois  monarchy  and 
did  not  represent  a  restoration  of  feudalism.  He 
showed  that  the  Soviet  Union,  in  retaining  the 
basic  conquests  of  the  Revolution,  must  continue 
to  be  defended. 

The  coup  by  which  Stalin  consolidated  power 
was  made  possible  by  the  devastation  caused  by 
the  Civil  War.  The  first  major  political  problem 
that  the  Soviet  state  faced  was  obviously:  who  is 
going  to  run  the  country?  The  vast  illiteracy  of 
the  masses  of  people  dictated  that  the  personnel 
of  a  bureaucracy  be  recruited  largely  from  people 
of  privileged  classes  of  the  old  regime,  including 
the  Czarist  bureaucracy.  However  dangerous  this 
may  have  been,  as  long  as  the  party  of  the  pro- 


letariat was  in  control,  Lenin  was  confident  of 
maintaining  the  revolution.  In  1921  he  described 
the  situation  in  this  way:  "We  have  a  workers 
state  with  bureaucratic  appendages." 

But  after  his  death,  the  bureaucracy  was  able 
to  inundate  the  party  itself.  Although  I  have  lost 
most  of  my  old  library,  I  recall  that  Trotsky  in- 
cluded the  statistics  in  The  Revolution  Betrayed. 
At  the  time  of  the  revolution,  the  party  member- 
ship was  about  115,000  members.  In  spite  of 
severe  erosion  during  the  Civil  War,  it  had  in- 
creased to  perhaps  500,000  in  about  1921.  By 
1924,  however,  Stalin  as  General  Secretary  had 
been  able  to  flood  the  party  with  240,000  new 
members,  largely  recruited  from  the  privileged 
section  of  the  population,  composed  of  bureau- 
crats of  an  alien  class  origin  [the  "Lenin  Levy"]. 
This  was  at  a  time  when  the  proletariat  had  been 
virtually  destroyed. 

After  consolidating  its  power,  the  bureaucra- 
cy forever  after  was  concerned  primarily  with 
maintaining  its  privileged  position.  It  gradually 
crystallized  into  a  privileged  caste.  The  bureauc- 
ratization of  the  party  was  followed  by  that  of 
the  Soviets  and  finally  the  Comintern. 

The  first  decisive  politico-economic  turn 
made  by  the  new  ruling  stratum  was  to  search 
for  a  non-proletarian  social  base,  and  they  turned 
to  the  peasantry  with  the  dictum  "enrich  your- 
selves." This  created  the  kulaks.  When  the 
wealthy  peasants  staged  their  bloodless  uprising 
in  1929,  Stalin  abruptly  turned  to  their  extermi- 
nation and  decreed  forced  collectivization,  the 
combination  of  which  destroyed  agriculture  and 
created  horrible  famine. 

In  foreign  policy,  the  bureaucracy  turned  to 
rapprochement  with  the  imperialists  and  the 
colonial  bourgeoisie,  particularly  in  Britain  and 
China.  The  trouble  arose  not  because  of  renewed 
diplomatic  relations  and  trade  agreements,  which 
were  absolutely  necessary  for  survival,  but  be- 
cause bureaucratic  instinct  demanded  that  the 
Communist  parties  of  the  world  base  their  poli- 
cies upon  these  diplomatic  arrangements.  In  this 
way,  through  purges  of  leading  Communist  cad- 
res, the  Comintern  was  eventually  degraded  into 
a  mere  arm  of  Soviet  foreign  policy.  Already,  by 
1926,  when  Britain  and  China  were  in  revolu- 
tionary turmoil,  the  hands  of  both  parties  were 
tied  to  the  capitalist  class.  In  Britain,  this  was 
accomplished  through  subservience  to  Ramsay 
MacDonald  as  he  betrayed  the  general  strike.  In 
China,  although  Trotsky  had  initiated  the  entry 
of  the  CP  into  the  Kuomintang  in  perhaps  it  was 


98 


1922  or  '23,  he  and  Zinoviev  both  realized  the 
limitations  of  coalition  with  the  class  enemy  and 
demanded  an  end  to  it  as  the  revolutionary  peri- 
od approached,  but  the  bureaucracy  was  too 
comfortable  with  Chiang  Kai-shek  and  couldn't 
break.  The  CP  was  all  but  physically  destroyed. 

Regardless  of  the  fact  that  the  Trotsky- 
Zinoviev  analysis  of  the  problem  in  1926-27  was 
not  adequate  to  encompass  the  later  unfolding  of 
the  Chinese  Revolution  under  different  condi- 
tions, at  that  time,  it  was  quite  correct.  If  it  had 
been  considered  by  the  Comintern  in  time,  it 
could  have  meant  the  difference  in  the  outcome 
of  the  whole  history  of  China. 

The  Soviet  economy  was  first  organized  in  an 
exclusive,  bureaucratic  manner.  Just  divide  the 
branches  of  industry  among  the  available  com- 
munists. Trotsky's  proposal  to  create  a  planned 
economy  was  rejected  as  "super-industrializa- 
tion." When  the  old  method  had  utterly  failed  to 
revive  the  economy,  Stalin  finally  agreed  to  the 
principle  of  planned  economy.  However,  by  this 
time,  all  democracy  had  been  stripped  from  the 
Soviets,  and  if  there  is  one  thing  in  history  which 
completely  validates  your  present  criticism  of  the 
lack  of  democracy  in  the  Soviet  countries,  it  is 
that  lesson.  Without  some  democratic  control  the 
nationalization  of  the  means  of  production  loses 
a  great  deal  of  its  vitality — principally  its  ability 
to  adjust  to  new  circumstances.  That  was  the 
problem  with  the  five-year  plans.  Unrealistic 
planning  preceded  bureaucratic  bungling  of  exe- 
cution. And  it  went  on  like  that.  It  took  roughly 
50  years  to  unravel  the  tangle  in  the  economy 
created  by  that  early  history  of  planning  without 
democratic  responsibility.  I  doubt  that  even  now 
the  industrial  planning  is  fully  rationalized. 

The  international  defeats  of  the  1920's 
brought  on,  as  a  conditioned  reflex,  the  night- 
mare of  the  Third  Period.  Stalin's  giant  intellect 
produced  the  theory  of  social  fascism  and  the 
united  front  from  below,  characterized  the  Social 
Democracy  as  only  one  variety  of  fascism,  prohib- 
iting any  approach  to  the  united  front  of  the 
working  class.  Hitler  marched  through  Germany 
by  the  path  created  by  this  division  in  the  class, 
without  which  he  could  never  have  come  to  pow- 
er without  civil  war.  This  catastrophe  brought  on 
the  Moscow  Trials,  as  if  to  demonstrate  to  the 
world  that  everyone  but  Stalin  was  responsible 
for  the  failures.  During  the  purges  of  that  period 
every  single  surviving  member  of  Lenin's  Political 
Committee,  save  one,  I  think,  was  murdered  or 
executed. 


The  popular  front  comes  next  for  the  Interna- 
tional. Totally  disregarding  Lenin's  thesis  on  the 
united  front  of  the  working  class,  it  was  such  a 
relief  from  the  Third  Period  madness,  that  Com- 
munists everywhere  embraced  it  joyfully,  hook, 
line  and  sinker,  and  have  never  recovered.  This 
permanent  coalition  with  the  capitalist  class  led 
directly  to  the  defeat  of  the  Spanish  working 
class,  the  abandonment  of  France  to  Hitler  and 
the  emasculation  of  the  parties  everywhere.  I  am 
weary  of  hearing  over  and  over  again  that  the 
Spanish  tragedy  was  caused  only  by  German  and 
Italian  bombers,  etc.  It's  nonsense.  The  die  was 
cast  before  Franco  ever  landed  in  southern  Spain 
with  his  Moroccan  troops. 

Trapped  in  a  coalition  government  with  the 
capitalist  class,  the  working  class  parties  were 
powerless  to  secure  adherence  of  Moroccan  na- 
tionalists or  the  southern  peasantry.  Abd  el-Krim, 
the  legendary  leader  of  the  Rifs,  went  to  the 
Popular  Front  and  assured  them  that  even  an 
emancipation  proclamation  would  prevent  Franco 
from  recruiting  an  army  there,  but  the  Spanish 
capitalists  were  the  imperial  masters  of  the  Afri- 
can colonies.  Likewise  with  the  peasants.  The 
capitalist  class  was  the  biggest  landlord  in  Spain, 
having  taken  all  the  Church  lands  and  some  more 
during  the  revolution  of  1931.  This  was  a  fact 
that  even  Felix  Morrow,  our  best  propagandist, 
failed  to  understand  in  his  otherwise  fine  analysis 
of  the  Spanish  Civil  War. 

Every  international  catastrophe  brought  more 
purges  at  home.  This  time  they  reached  into  the 
ultimate  defense  of  the  Soviet  Union,  the  Red 
Army,  where  the  cream  of  the  officer  corps  was 
ripped  off.  Even  a  careless  scan  of  the  phony  Hit- 
ler diaries  would  have  revealed  their  fraudulent 
nature  as  Hitler  is  imagined  as  commending 
Stalin  for  his  execution  of  Tukhachevsky.  He 
would  never  have  said  that  in  private — he  would 
have  gloated  over  it  and  ridiculed  Stalin  for 
falling  into  the  trap,  for  it  was  the  Gestapo  which 
framed  the  general  of  the  Red  Army,  precisely  to 
weaken  the  Soviet  Union  militarily. 

I  can't  force  myself  to  belabor  this  question 
longer.  Trotsky's  analysis  of  this  evolution  of 
bureaucratization  of  the  Soviet  political  economy 
and  its  product  were  complete  and  proven  suffi- 
ciently to  require  more  consideration  than  the  old 
cliches. 

Is  all  this  only  ancient  history,  to  be  forgotten 
along  with  everything  that  is  either  unpopular  or 
distasteful?  I  don't  think  so.  I  don't  see  how  we 
can  possibly  understand  either  the  Soviet  Union 


99 


today  or  the  Communist  movement  of  Europe 
without  knowing  its  origins.  Furthermore,  I  have 
found  that  analysis  and  the  refreshing  analogy  to 
the  Thermidorian  reaction  in  France  to  be  ex- 
tremely helpful  in  understanding  the  rise  of  the 
Slave  Power  in  the  19th  century  U.S. — which 
brings  us  closer  to  home  because  the  whole 
problem  of  race  relations  today  is  intertwined 
with  what  happened  in  the  early  part  of  the  19th 
century.  Without  that  revealing  insight  into  the 
French  Revolution,  I  don't  know  if  I  would  have 
been  able  to  understand  what  seems  most  impor- 
tant to  me  today. 


Just  yesterday  I  received  from  a  friend  the 
Socialist  Review  which  contains  the  second  of 
your  pieces  on  Socialism  and  Beyond.  I  haven't 
had  time  to  study  it  yet,  but  a  cursory  reading  of 
it  allows  me  a  brief  comment.  In  all  respects  it  is 
the  most  important  thing  that  I  have  read  con- 
cerning the  problems  of  the  left  in  general  and 
our  movement  in  particular.  Many  of  your 
thoughts  have  been  on  my  mind  a  long  time,  but 
I  have  seldom  had  an  opportunity  to  say  them. 


One  of  the  greatest  ironies  that  I  know  of  is 
that  it  was  precisely  the  exceptional  analytic 
achievements  of  the  Old  Man  that  made  for  the 
sectarianism  which  was  part  of  the  failure  of  the 
SWP.  We  used  all  the  arguments  which  could  be 
derived  from  his  writings,  and  used  them  con- 
tinuously. We  proved  and  predicted  on  a  global 
scale.  We  became  hypnotized  by  our  propagan- 
dist^ successes.  Then  came  the  Minneapolis 
strikes  which  became  one  of  the  major  achieve- 
ments of  the  modern  labor  movement  before  the 
CIO.  We  got  the  feeling  that  all  we  had  to  do  was 
to  hold  on  to  the  doctrine,  ready-made  for  us  and 
perfect — that  is,  hold  on  to  every  jot  and  tittle, 
without  even  the  slightest  alteration.  The  purity 
of  doctrine  coupled  with  Cannon's  trade  union 
expertise  was  a  sure  formula  for  winning  'em  all. 
When  the  Old  Man  was  killed,  the  fountain  dried 
up.  The  ideological  cupboard  was  bare  and  we 
were  left  with  the  formula,  which  was  totally 
inadequate  for  the  changing  world. 

II.  Mao's  Stalinism.  Just  another  peripheral 
point.  I  was  a  bit  stunned  by  your  remark  that 
Mao  was  a  Stalinist.  Again  without  any  elabora- 
tion. That  is  not  quite  true.  After  1927  at  least 
until  the  Long  March  Mao  was  in  constant  oppo- 
sition to  the  Comintern  which  had  become  tightly 


held  by  Stalin.  The  disastrous  twists  of  the  Com- 
intern were  particularly  cruel  to  the  Chinese. 
Particularly  the  Third  Period.  The  theories  that 
designated  the  Social  Democracy  as  fascistturned 
in  China  into  the  theory  that  the  nationalist 
bourgeoisie  was  not  capitalist  at  all,  but  feudal, 
and  even  after  the  Japanese  invasion,  was  the 
main  enemy  and  had  to  be  constantly  fought  mili- 
tarily. Needless  to  say  this  precluded  any  possible 
united  war  against  the  Japanese.  To  take  this  sit- 
uation from  bad  to  impossible,  Stalin  conceived 
the  idea  that  the  Chinese  nationalists  were  pre- 
paring a  war  against  the  Soviet  Union  and  that 
"apocalyptically"  (John  Rue)  the  Chinese  Revolu- 
tion must  be  sacrificed  for  the  defense  of  the 
Soviet  Union. 

Overlaying  these  sources  of  conflict  was  the 
fundamental  one  involving  the  peasantry.  Stalin 
refused  to  admit  that  his  policies  had  led  to  the 
utter  defeat  of  the  revolution  in  1927.  The 
Chinese  proletariat,  a  smaller  minority  of  the 
population  than  even  the  Russian  workers  at  the 
time  of  the  revolution,  had  been  mauled  by 
Chiang  Kai-shek  probably  worse  than  Hitler  was 
to  maul  the  German  proletariat.  Mao  seemed  to 
understand  this  and  proceeded  to  ignore  when- 
ever possible  the  constant  directives  from  Moscow 
to  attack  the  cities  where  the  proletariat  was 
ready  to  revolt  again. 

All  through  this  dismal  period  Mao  ignored, 
resisted,  defied  and  struggled  against  every  policy 
of  the  Comintern,  and  for  that  was  expelled  three 
times  from  the  Central  Committee,  barely  retain- 
ing Party  membership,  imprisoned  once  and  put 
under  house  arrest  once. 

When  Ch'en  Tu-hsiu,  the  founding  leader  of 
the  Party,  was  expelled  in  1929,  Li  Li-san  was 
placed  in  the  leadership  of  the  Central  Commit- 
tee, and  took  charge  of  Stalin's  policy  of  exter- 
mination of  the  kulaks  (which  was  simply  absurd 
when  bureaucratically  transplanted  to  China) 
and  the  Third  Period,  both  of  which  were  or- 
dered by  the  VI  Congress  of  the  Comintern.  Li 
was  unable  to  pursue  either  policy  effectively, 
nor  was  he  able  to  completely  defeat  Mao's  peas- 
ant policy  and  his  resistance  to  the  policies  of  the 
Comintern.  He  was  summoned  to  Moscow,  which 
was  second  best  to  expulsion,  and  the  regime  of 
the  28  Bolsheviks  was  inaugurated.  They  were 
young  Communists  who  had  been  sent  to  Moscow 
to  study.  (I  was  acquainted  with  two  Communists 
who  had  attended  the  Lin  School  in  Moscow 
during  that  period.  They  returned  to  the  U.S. 
anti-Semitic  and  anti-Trotskyist  in  the  extreme. 


100 


They  were  no  less  hostile  to  Browder  principally 
because  they  claimed  he  was  a  Jew.) 

A  long  and  bitter  struggle  between  Mao  and 
the  Central  Committee  which  nearly  devastated 
the  Party  ensued  and  caused  Mao's  third  expul- 
sion and  his  imprisonment  in  1934.  However, 
within  a  year,  operating  from  a  strong  base  in  the 
Army,  he  succeeded  in  overthrowing  the  28  Bol- 
shevik Central  Committee  and  reorganizing  that 
Committee.  He  then  organized  the  7th  Plenum  of 
the  Central  Committee,  which  had  not  met  since 
1928,  at  the  Tsun-yi  Conference  [1935]  which 
adopted  his  complete  political,  military  and 
organizational  policy,  which  was  subsequently 
adopted  by  the  7th  Congress  of  the  Party.  By  then 
the  Comintern  was  powerless  to  interfere  to  any 
extent  in  the  operation  of  the  war. 

The  long  internal  conflicts,  the  abrupt 
changes  in  policy,  the  extensive  purges  and  the 
final  complete  defeat  of  the  Comintern  greatly 
weakened  its  authority  in  China.  This  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  Long  March,  in  which  its  basic 
policy  was  scrapped,  and  World  War  II  and  the 
dissolution  of  the  Comintern,  all  of  which  left 
Mao  able  to  pretty  much  go  his  own  way  until  his 
final  victory  over  Chiang  and  the  consolidation 
of  Soviet  power  in  China. 

The  [1929]  expulsion  of  Ch'en  Tu-hsiu  was 
precipitated  by  his  open  confrontation  and  chal- 
lenge to  Stalin's  whole  policy  in  his  "A  Statement 
of  Our  Views."  His  expulsion  ended  his  effective 
political  career  in  the  Chinese  Revolution.  This  I 
view  as  one  of  the  tragedies  of  the  revolution. 
For  he  was  not  only  one  of  the  most  able  and 
devoted  of  the  old  leaders,  but  was  the  finest 
scholar  among  them,  having  been  able  to 
modernize  the  written  language  and  other 
achievements. 

Mao  evidently  took  his  demise  as  a  warning 
and  chose  not  to  follow  his  path  of  confrontation 
with  Stalin.  He  masked  his  non-Stalinism  by 
dissimulation.  For  instance,  in  describinghis  own 
works,  he  states  that  he  has  "developed  Lenin's 
and  Stalin's  theses  on  the  revolutionary  move- 
ment in  colonial  and  semicolonial  countries,  as 
well  as  Stalin's  theses  on  the  Chinese  revolution." 
But  he  goes  on  to  describe  only  his  own  ideas, 
referring  to  Stalin  only  in  regard  to  a  thesis  of 
the  later  period  of  the  first  united  front  with  the 
Kuomintang  (circa  1923).  But  nowhere  does  he 
state  that  Stalin's  later  positions  were  correct. 
(See  "Resolution  on  Some  Questions  in  the 
History  of  Our  Party,"  1945.) 

Mao  probably  never  supported  Ch'en's  poli- 


cies after  he  went  into  open  opposition.  However 
after  Ch'en's  final  expulsion,  the  Central  Com- 
mittee condemned  open  discussion  in  the  Party  of 
his  "liquidationism"  as  "extreme  democratiza- 
tion." It  is  of  interest  that  this  was  a  primary 
charge  against  Mao  by  Li,  and  continued  to  be  for 
several  years. 

A  misleading  notion  of  the  internal  life  of 
the  Party  is  given  by  both  Edgar  Snow  and  Agnes 
Smedley  as  a  result  of  their  interviews  with  Mao 
in  1936  and  '37  in  which  he  makes  no  mention 
of  the  struggle  with  Li  from  1928  to  1934  which 
was  the  central  axis  of  the  internal  life  of  the 
Party. 

While  Mao  seems  to  have  completely  avoided 
written  reference  to  his  disagreement  with  and 
struggles  against  Stalin's  and  the  Comintern's 
basic  lines,  he  had  this  to  say  about  their 
organizational  policy  and  the  purges  which  he 
witnessed  both  in  China  and  in  Moscow:  they 

"invariably  attached... damaging  labels  to  all  com- 
rades in  the  party  who,  finding  the  erroneous  line 
impracticable,  expressed  doubts  about  it,  disagreed 
with  it,  resented  it,  supported  it  only  lukewarmly,  or 
executed  it  only  halfheartedly.  Labels  like  'right 
opportunism, "line  of  the  rich  peasants,'... 'line  of 
conciliation,'  and  'double  dealing'... waged  'relentless 
struggles'  against  [them]  as  if... they  were  criminals 
and  enemies.  Instead  of  regarding  the  veteran  cadres 
as  valuable  assets  to  the  party,  the  sectarians  persecut- 
ed, punished,  and  deposed  large  numbers  of  these 
veterans  in  the  central  and  local  organizations 

Large  numbers  of  good  comrades  were  wrongly 

indicted  and  unjustly  punished;  this  led  to  the 

most  lamentable  losses  in  the  party Comrades 

who  upon  investigation  are  proved  to  have  died 
as  victims  of  a  miscarriage  of  justice  should  be 
absolved  from  false  accusations,  reinstated  as 
party  members,  and  forever  remembered  by  all 
comrades." 

Mao  Tse-tung,  Selected  Works, 
Vol.  IV,  pp.  206-207 

Mao  thus  survived  Stalinism  by  dissimulation 
and  is  somewhat  reminiscent  of  Claudius,  who 
survived  a  whole  series  of  the  most  brutal  Roman 
Emperors  by  pretending  to  be  a  moronic  dunce, 
and  of  Khrushchev,  who  lived  through  Stalin's 
reign  of  terror  by  playing  the  role  of  a  willing 
and  obedient  clown. 

John  Rue  in  his  remarkable  book,  Mao  Tse- 
tung  in  Opposition:  1927-1935  (Stanford  U. 
Press,  1966),  gives  an  intricately  detailed  and 
elaborately  documented  study  of  the  struggle 
between  Mao  and  Stalin's  agents.  After  the  war  he 
appears  to  have  made  his  peace  with  Stalinism. 


101 


However  Rue,  having  made  a  definitive  study  of 
the  history  of  the  relations  between  Mao  and 
Stalinism,  says  in  his  introduction  that  Mao 

"fought  his  way  to  the  chairmanship  of  the  CCP  in 
the  face  of  continuous  and  determined  opposition 
from  Chinese  party  leaders  appointed  and  supervised 
by  agencies  of  the  Comintern.  He  consolidated  his 
power  over  the  party  in  spite  of  everything  its  former 
leaders  could  do  to  overthrow  him.  He  developed  his 
political,  organizational,  and  military  lines  in 
opposition  to  the  lines  the  Stalinists  expounded 
when  they  were  in  command  of  the  central  organs 
of  the  CCP:  he  developed  his  ideological  line  in  his 
struggle  to  maintain  his  position  of  leadership  on 
the  Central  Committee.  So  by  1945  Mao  had  few 
ideological  commitments  to  Stalin.  After  that  year 
relations  between  the  two  were  dictated  by  their 
relative  power  positions.  Mao,  as  the  leader  of  the 
party  controlling  the  weaker  state,  occasionally 
had  to  bow  to  the  authority  of  Moscow,  but  even 
under  great  pressure  he  maintained  intact  the 
essential  features  of  his  special  position. 

"A  careful  examination  of  the  revised  edition  of 
his  works,  which  was  published  between  1951  and 
1953,  will  illustrate  the  many  problems  Mao  faced 
in  denying  the  correctness  of  certain  aspects  of 
Stalin's  theory  and  practice  to  a  Chinese  audience 
while  simultaneously  maintaining  officially  correct 
and  cordial  relations  with  the  omniscient  dictator 


in  the  Kremlin.  Such  an  examination  is  of  general 
interest  as  an  example  of  the  use  of  sophisticated 
verbal  camouflage  by  relatively  weak  groups  who 
need  to  conceal  their  opposition  status  under  the 
conditions  created  by  a  tightly  disciplined  and 
highly  centralized  international  party  regime." 

So  what  is  the  final  product  of  his  remark- 
able political  odyssey?  Mao  undertook  a  brief 
sally  into  internationalism  in  his  fine  polemics 
against  [Palmiro]  Togliatti  in  1964.  For  this,  I 
was  misled  into  writing  (along  with  my  former 
wife,  Clara)  in  our  resolution  to  the  S WP  conven- 
tion the  following  year  that  "China  was  realign- 
ing the  old  Third  International  against  the 
Kremlin."  Whatever  Mao's  intention  at  that  time, 
this  did  not  come  about.  He  received  very  little 
response  to  that  one  try  and  went  back  into  his 
shell.  He  personifies  the  one  big  defect  of  the 
Chinese  Revolution:  he  became  crystallized  as  a 
national  Communist,  head  and  shoulders  above 
Stalin's  nationalism,  in  which,  however,  there  are 
similarities.  As  for  Euro-Communism,  having 
taken  over  much  of  the  heritage  of  Social  Democ- 
racy in  their  concern  for  the  national  welfare  of 
the  various  countries  in  which  they  practice,  I 
agree  completely  with  yourcharacterization.  I  am 
tempted  to  call  these  Communists  Communo- 
Democrats. 


On  "Color  Caste" 


From  Spartacist  League/U.S.  Internal  Information  and  Discussion  Bulletin 
whole  No.  43,  March  1984.  Dick  Fraser  addressed  this  15  January  1984  letter 
from  Los  Angeles  to  Jim  Robertson. 


During  the  comrades'  recent  visit,  we  had  a 
lively  discussion  triggered  by  my  lectures  on  black 
lib  of  1953  in  which  I  put  a  knock  on  the  proposi- 
tion that  blacks  are  a  caste.  This  would,  of 
course,  apply  equally  to  color  caste,  a  view  which 
I  still  hold.  The  discussion  having  been  opened, 
it  seems  reasonable  that  I  should  continue  it  with 
you. 

First,  I  must  abstract  from  color  caste,  which 
is  derivative,  to  get  to  the  basic  caste  alone— for 
if  it  is  admissible  to  consider  blacks  as  a  caste  in 
any  way,  color  caste  would,  of  course,  be  valid. 
The  opposite  would  also  be  true. 

I  discussed  this  briefly  in  Oakland  last 
summer,  and  when  I  observed  that  Oliver  Crom- 
well Cox's  analysis  of  this  question  would  have  to 
be  confronted  before  a  legitimacy  for  designating 
blacks  as  a  color  caste  could  be  established.  It 
was  argued— and  this  argument  continues  to  sur- 
face—that Cox  refers  to  color  caste  only  in  an  off- 
hand footnote  and  that  therefore  it  is  not 
important  to  confront  him.  This  is  a  counterfeit 
argument  in  which  it  is  attempted  to  circumvent 
the  fact  that  Cox  spent  at  least  1/3  of  a  compre- 
hensive scholarly  work  demonstrating  that  blacks 
in  the  U.S.  are  not  a  caste  of  any  kind.  I  found 
Cox's  analysis  to  be  absolutely  conclusive,  and  I 
cannot  see  how  it  can  be  dismissed. 

My  view  of  the  race  question,  first  publicly 
expressed  in  1953,  derived  in  large  part  from  a 
study  of  the  works  of  the  black  writers  and 
scholars,  principally  of  the  first  half  of  the 
century,  which  was  a  period  of  a  great  outpouring 
of  profound  thought  on  race  relations  from  the 
black  community. 

I  read  everything  I  could  get  my  hands  on  in 
the  writings  of  W.E.B.  Du  Bois,  E.  Franklin  Fra- 
zier,  Alain  Locke,  Richard  Wright,  Ralph  Bunche, 
Charles  H.  Thompson,  James  Weldon  Johnson, 
Kelly  Miller,  Oliver  Cromwell  Cox,  and  others 
whose  names  escape  me. 

I  sought  to  take  the  important  basic  concepts 
of  race  and  race  relations  expressed  by  these 


thinkers,  many  of  whom  were  Socialist/Commu- 
nist-minded  militants,  and  synthesize  them  into 
a  scientific  Marxist  doctrine.  In  the  process,  I  was 
able  to  cull  valuable  hints  from  the  erudite 
display  of  C.L.R.  James.  Dave  Dreiser  was  very 
helpful. 

If  I  had  found  a  single  hint  or  suggestion  in 
all  that,  that  the  idea  of  caste  could  be  applied  to 
blacks,  I  would  have  investigated  it,  but  that 
whole  body  of  thought  is  devoid  of  any  such  sug- 
gestion. Such  a  proposition  is  to  be  found  in  the 
book  by  Gunnar  Myrdal,  the  Swedish  sociologist 
who  was  hired  by  the  Carnegie  Corporation  to 
solve  the  "Negro  Question"  for  the  ruling  class. 
I  had  decided  from  the  beginning  to  be  wary  of 
white  bourgeois  scholars,  as  well  as  the  Socialist 
and  Communist  theoreticians,  whom  I  decided 
had  made  a  mockery  of  Marxism  with  pseudo- 
theories  of  black  lib. 

I  claim  little  originality  in  my  final  work 
(first  in  a  resolution  designed  for  the  National 
Convention  written  in  1952,  then  the  lectures) 
except  for  the  synthesis  of  the  key  thoughts  of 
the  black  scholars  and  the  views  of  the  black 
workers  who  I  was  fortunate  enough  to  have  as 
friends.  I  think  that  the  only  original  contribution 
of  mine  was  the  end  product  of  the  following 
sequence:  1.  The  race  concept  of  biological  supe- 
riority/inferiority has  been  destroyed:  the  race 
concept  has  no  biological  reality.  2.  Nevertheless 
the  phenomenon  race  exists.  Proof:  try  to  tell 
black  people  that  there  is  no  such  thing.  (I  went 
through  a  period  trying  that.)  3.  The  reality  of 
race  is  that  it  provides  the  form  for  social 
discrimination.  4.  Race,  therefore,  much  like 
value,  is  a  social  relation. 

Next,  I  attempted  to  demonstrate  that  the 
racial  structure  and  race  relations  in  the  U.S.  are 
historically  unique.  That  no  society  has  ever  been 
founded  upon  a  division  based  exclusively  upon 
superficial  physical  characteristics.  There  is,  of 
course,  a  similarity  between  social  relations  in  the 
U.  S.  and  South  Africa.  However,  the  oppression 


102 


103 


of  blacks  there  bears  a  basically  national  character— 
the  oppression  of  the  Bantu  and  other  African 
nations  by  the  Afrikaners. 

Further,  that  the  fundamental  historical  ten- 
dency of  the  relationship  between  black  and 
white  is  towards  mutual  assimilation  as  evidenced 
by  the  interactive  and  reciprocal  cultural  devel- 
opment which  has  been  an  active  phenomenon 
almost  from  the  beginning  of  black  and  white 
populations  living  side  by  side  during  slavery. 
However,  this  mutual  assimilation,  which  under 
any  other  circumstances  would  have  produced  a 
more  or  less  unified  and  homogeneous  people 
after  a  period  of  time,  was  thwarted,  first  by  the 
Anglo-American  racist  mentality  fostered  by  the 
slaveowners,  and  then  by  the  requirements  of 
capitalism  for  the  control  of  the  working  class: 
with  a  united  working  class  capitalism  will  not 
survive.  This  is  demonstrated  in  the  stormy  and 
uneven  history  of  working  class  struggle. 

Mutual  assimilation  is  a  powerful  social 
force.  Racism  is  an  irrational  institutionalized 
condition— in  its  extreme  form  individual  or  mass 
insanity.  That  capitalism  must  use  racism  to  sur- 
vive, cutting  across  and  violating  this  powerful 
social  force  towards  assimilation,  reveals  that 
however  imposing  its  history  and  however  univer- 
sally it  shapes  life  and  social  relations,  it  is 
fragile.  It  will  be  overthrown  with  the  overthrow 
of  the  capitalist  class,  and  only  by  that.  (Perhaps 
this  was  the  original  thought.) 

It  is  argued  that  defining  blacks  as  a  caste  or 
color  caste  is  justified  by  its  similarity  to  the  caste 
system  in  India,  where  it  is  said  the  lower  castes 
are  of  darker  skin  color.  This  may  be  true,  but  the 
upper-caste  Hindus  I  know  would  be  designated 
black  in  South  Carolina  if  not  clearly  advertised 
as  foreigners,  and  are  recognized  by  the  Third 
World  as  part  of  the  darker  peoples. 

It  would  be  reasonable  that  the  Hindus  might 
have  color  consciousness  without  racism,  how- 
ever, even  the  factor  of  color  consciousness  seems 
to  be  minor  and  unimportant.  Cox  states  categor- 
ically that  viewing  the  various  gradient  castes  "no 
sense  of  physical  distinction  need  be  aroused."  It 
maybe  that  the  Hindu  castes  exhibit  darker  color 
as  they  descend  the  social  scale,  but  that  in  itself 
does  not  qualify  them  as  a  parallel  to  U.S.  race 
relations. 

The  race  concept  has  been  expressed  many 
times  by  many  people,  but  none  better  than 
Thomas  Dixon,  Jr.:  "no  amount  of  education  of 
any  kind,  industrious,  classical  or  religious,  can 
make  a  Negro  a  white  man  or  bridge  the  chasm 


of  the  centuries  which  separates  him  from  the 
white  man  in  the  evolution  of  human  history" 
(from  "As  to  the  Leopard's  Spots:  An  Open  Letter 
to  Thomas  Dixon,  Jr."  by  Kelly  Miller).  There  is 
no  race  concept  incorporated  into  the  Indian 
caste  system,  and  the  attempt  to  equate  black 
oppression  in  the  U.S.  to  the  castes  of  India  only 
tends  to  transfer  the  stability  and  relative  per- 
manence of  the  age-old  Hindu  caste  system  to  the 
race  system,  which  questions  its  fragility.  This 
fragility  is  one  of  the  most  important  factors  to 
consider  when  dealing  with  the  possibility  of  its 
disappearance— a  problem  of  vital  concern  to 
blacks.  This  fragility  of  racism  is  one  of  the  great 
contradictions  of  U.S.  capitalism  and  is  its 
Achilles  heel. 

I  have  found  that  it  is  not  uncommon  for 
white  liberals  and  radicals,  having  realized  that 
the  race  concept— even  its  modified  version  in 
modern  anthropology— is  a  gigantic  fraud,  to  try 
to  find  some  way  to  eliminate  race  from  the 
vocabulary.  But  race  is  nevertheless  a  social 
reality,  and  the  search  for  a  way  to  call  it 
something  which  it  is  not  is  fruitless. 

Blacks  generally  ignore  this  idiosyncrasy,  and 
socially  concerned  blacks  go  about  the  task  of 
building  racial  pride,  which  I  have  called  race 
consciousness,  an  important  stage  in  political  de- 
velopment. Would  you  take  this  away  from  them, 
substituting  a  caste  pride?  If  you  would,  it's  just 
not  in  the  cards.  I  recently  reread  Ralph  Ellison's 
introduction  to  his  Essays,  and  it  is  impossible  to 
imagine  that  he  should  forsake  racial  pride  as  is 
indicated  by  your  insistence  on  the  color  caste. 

When  you  consider  this,  you  run  into  all 
kinds  of  difficulties,  for  if  you  are  to  be  con- 
sistent in  relating  race  to  Indian  caste,  the 
analogy  must  be  that  blacks  relate  to  the  Un- 
touchables, and  I  think  you  would  agree  that 
there  is  little  there  to  encourage  caste  pride  for 
black  Americans.  Furthermore,  once  having  desig- 
nated blacks  as  a  caste,  you  are  logically  required 
also  to  designate  at  least  White  Anglo-Saxon 
Protestants  as  another  caste,  and  perhaps  a  grad- 
ed hierarchy  of  intermediate  castes.  Although  you 
don't  want  to  do  this,  I  believe  that  this  is  a 
necessary  extension  of  the  color  caste  theory.  I 
have  stated  that  the  racial  structure  of  American 
society  overlays  the  class  structure,  blurring  and 
distorting  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  theoretical 
construction  of  a  caste  system  would  tend  to 
replace  the  class  structure,  nullifying  the  class 
struggle. 

When  I  was  writing  about  "The  Materialist 


104 


Conception  of  the  Negro  Question"  in  1954, 1  was 
concerned  mainly  with  Nationalism.  That  was  the 
ground  of  the  argument  with  Breitman.  I  was 
aware  of  the  existence  of  caste  as  one  of  the 
facets  of  the  problem,  but  there  didn't  seem  to  be 
any  urgency  to  deal  with  it.  It  was  inconceivable 
then,  as  it  is  today,  that  the  idea  of  caste  could 
ever  be  given  currency  among  blacks,  even  in  its 
derivative  form,  color  caste.  If  I  had  considered  it, 
in  absence  of  the  necessity  of  replying  to  an  op- 
ponent, I  would  probably  have  merely  referred  to 
Cox's  work,  which  on  this  subject  is  complete  and 
definitive. 

However,  had  I  been  confronted  with  an 
argument  such  as  I  have  had  recently,  I  would 
have  written  pretty  much  what  I  have  said  today. 


This  is  integral  to  "The  Materialist  Conception  of 
the  Negro  Question." 

The  Communist  Party  in  the  '30s  had  a  great 
burden  to  carry  in  the  theory  of  Negro  National- 
ism and  Self-Determination  of  the  Black  Belt.  The 
CP  was  militant  enough  and  sound  enough  on 
practical  matters  of  racism,  that  blacks  disre- 
garded this  theoretical  and  programmatic  fault, 
and  joined  and  assimilated  into  the  party  in  large 
numbers.  Your  theory  of  the  color  caste  will  not 
prevent  black  workers  from  supporting  and 
joining  Spartacist  and  the  Labor/Black  League, 
but  you  will  repel  many  intellectuals,  whom  you 
would  otherwise  get.  Ultimately,  you  cannot  af- 
ford to  be  anything  but  scientifically  correct  all 
the  way. 


On  Libya 


From  Spartacist  LeagueAJ.S.  Internal  Bulletin  whole  No.  49,  January  1988.  Dick 
Fraser  addressed  this  21  March  1986  letter  to  Jim  Robertson. 


One  of  my  failings  has  been  a  reluctance  to 
apply  energy  to  analysis  of  International  problems— 
usually  until  the  problem  virtually  hits  me  in  the 
face.  Such  is  the  case  with  Libya,  to  which  I  have 
paid  only  the  attention  due  to  newspaper  articles. 

While  in  the  hospital  in  January,  I  happened 
upon  a  broadcast  interview  with  Qaddafi.  It  is 
possible  that  due  to  your  travels  you  missed  it, 
although  it  was  reported  in  full  in  the  LA  Times, 
so  I  will  recapitulate  my  recollection  of  the 
memorable  parts. 

First,  I  must  say  that  he  makes  a  good 
appearance.  Serious  and  firm,  occasionally  a  little 
emotional,  but  subdued.  For  the  most  part  spon- 
taneous, as  opposed  to  the  studied  and  rehearsed 
and  posed  delivery  of  our  aging  juvenile  actor. 

Very  early  in  his  presentation  he  talked  about 
Reagan's  tirades,  calling  them  "stinking  crusader- 
ism,"  which  I  thought  was  a  nice  way  of  putting 
it.  He  went  on  to  talk  about  the  sanctions,  saying 
that  they  were  not  hurting  Libya,  and  if  they 
should  do  so,  "we'll  go  Communist.  That's  what 
happened  to  Cuba.  Castro  wasn't  a  Communist 
but  you  made  him  go  that  way." 

He  made  a  telling  point  on  Reagan's  anti- 
Semitism  in  his  dealings  with  the  Arabs. 

Only  a  few  hours  later,  I  caught  a  semi- 
documentary  on  Libya  from  PBS.    Without  my 


being  aware  of  it,  there  has  been  a  considerable 
revolution  going  on  there.  Libya  is  the  only  Arab 
country  where  the  oil  revenues  are  shared  by  the 
people.  The  Libyan  workers  and  peasants  have 
the  highest  standard  of  living  of  all  Arab 
countries.  A  revolutionary  step  towards  women's 
liberation  has  taken  place.  Libya  is  the  only  Arab 
country  which  has  almost  completely  violated 
Moslem  orthodoxy  in  this  area.  In  the  metropol- 
itan areas  they  claim  to  have  approximated 
equality  of  women.  Showed  women  in  the  armed 
forces  in  combat  training.  There  is  resistance  to 
this  in  the  interior  from  the  orthodox  hierarchy. 

I  presume  that  you  have  given  some  thought 
to  Qaddafi,  as  the  Healyites  seem  to  have  had 
some  dealing  with  him.  However,  I  was  very  im- 
pressed with  what  I  heard  and  read,  and  I  would 
suggest  that  either  yourself  or  some  member  of 
your  International  apparatus  in  Europe  inves- 
tigate getting  an  interview. 

It  becomes  clear  to  me  now  why  Reagan  is  so 
afraid  of  that  man.  He  is  not  afraid  of  the  Soviet 
Union,  but  is  merely  awaiting  the  time  for  a  first 
strike  capability.  But  Qaddafi  he  is  afraid  of  be- 
cause in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  is  somewhat  iso- 
lated in  the  Arab  world,  principally  because  of  his 
flouting  of  orthodoxy,  he  has  nevertheless  be- 
come a  principal  spokesman  for  the  Arab  world. 


105 


Appendix 


Bibliography  of  Works 
by  Richard  S.  Fraser 


Most  of  the  documents  written  by  Richard  S.  Fraser  during  his  membership 
in  the  Socialist  Workers  Party  and  in  the  period  immediately  following  were 
published  and  circulated  under  the  pseudonym  Richard  Kirk.  We  have  indicated 
these  documents  with  an  asterisk  following  the  title.  Documents  included  in  this 
bulletin  are  marked  with  a  double  dagger  (4). 

This  bibliography  is  necessarily  partial;  for  example,  we  were  unable  to  locate 
all  ofFraser's  extensive  correspondence  with  other  individuals.  The  Prometheus 
Research  Library  would  appreciate  notification  about  any  additional  materials. 

Articles  and  Documents 


"Labor  Skate  Disbands  Militant  San  Diego  City  Labor 
Council,"  New  Militant,  February  8,  1936,  1  p. 

"Crisis  In  Fields  At  San  Diego,"  Labor  Action 
(California),  December  19,  1936,  1  p. 

"Wage  War  on  Union  in  San  Diego,"  Labor  Action 
(California),  December  26,  1936,  1  p. 

"San  Diego  Farm  Strike  Is  Crushed,"  Labor  Action 
(California),  February  20,  1937,  1  p4 

"New  NMU  Hall— Facade  to  Hide  Union  Retreat,"* 
Militant,  July  8,  1944,  1  p4 

"Soldiers  Cheer  Striking  Workers,"*  Militant, 
December  15,  1945,  1  p4 

"Some  Problems  of  Branch  Organization,"*  The  Party 
Builder  (Internal  Bulletin  of  the  Socialist  Workers 
Party),  Vol.  Ill,  No.  2,  July  1946,  pp.  13-14. 

"On  the  Negro  Question,"*  (June  7, 1952),  SWP Inter- 
nal Bulletin,  Vol.  14,  No.  1,  June  1952,  pp.  1-6. 

"The  Negro  Struggle  and  the  Proletarian  Revolution. 
Introduction  and  Two  Lectures  given  at  the 
Friday  Night  Forum,  Los  Angeles,  November, 
1953:  1.  Race  and  Capitalism  2.  The  Struggle  for 
Equality,"  SWP  Discussion  Bulletin,  A-19,  August 
1954,  pp.  1-444 

"For  the  Materialist  Conception  of  the  Negro 
Question,"  (January  3,  1955),  SWP  Discussion 
Bulletin,  A-30,  August  1955,  pp.  1-24.  Reprinted 
in  Marxist  Bulletin  No.  5R  (Spartacist 
League/U.S.),  September  1978,  pp.  2-16. 

"Contribution  to  Discussion  of  NAACP,"*  (September 
2,  1955),  SWP  Discussion  Bulletin,  Vol.  18,  No. 
14,  October  1957,  pp.  20-25. 

"Contribution  to  the  Discussion  on  the  Slogan  'Send 
Federal  Troops  to  Mississippi'  (Letter  from  Fraser, 
Seattle,  March  10,  1956),"  SWP  Discussion  Bul- 
letin, Vol.  18,  No.  13,  October  1957,  pp.  4-94 


"Resolution  on  the  Negro  Struggle,"*  (May  25,  1957; 
presented  to  the  Seventeenth  National  Conven- 
tion), SWP  Discussion  Bulletin,  Vol.  18,  No.  11, 
September  1957,  pp.  1-114 

"Presentation  in  Support  of 'Resolution  on  the  Negro 
Struggle'  at  the  Seventeenth  National  Conven- 
tion,"* (June  1957),  SWP  Discussion  Bulletin,  Vol. 
18,  No.  14,  October  1957,  pp.  3-11. 

"Summary  Remarks  on  Negro  Discussion  at  the  Sev- 
enteenth National  Convention,"*  (June  1957), 
SWP  Discussion  Bulletin,  Vol.  18,  No.  14,  October 

1957,  pp.  12-154 

"Editorial  Changes  to  'Resolution  on  the  Negro  Strug- 
gle',"* (September  21,  1957),  SWP  Discussion 
Bulletin,  Vol.  12,  No.  11,  September  1957,  p.  D. 

"Statement  on  the  Edited  Version  of  the  P.C.  Resolu- 
tion on  'The  Class  Struggle  Road  to  Negro  Equal- 
ity',"* (September  22, 1957) ,  SWP  Discussion  Bul- 
letin, Vol.  18,  No.  14,  October  1957,  pp.  1-2. 

"To  the  P.C.,"*  (October  10,  1957),  attached  to  Club 
Exec.  Minutes,  No.  18,  November  5,  1957,  1  p. 
(on  Little  Rock  crisis)^ 

"Resolution  on  the  Little  Rock  Crisis,"*  (submitted  to 
the  January  1958  Plenum  of  the  National  Com- 
mittee), SWP  Discussion  Bulletin,  Vol.  19,  No.  1, 

1958,  pp.  1-11. 

"To  Farrell  [Dobbs],"*  co-authored  with  Clara  Kaye, 
(January  22,  1958),  attached  to  Club  Exec.  Min- 
utes, No.  2,  January  23,  1958,  5  pp.  (on  Com- 
munist Party  and  Gatesites) 

"Plenum  Discussion  of  Cuban  Question.  Part  II— Dis- 
cussion from  Floor,"*  SWP  Discussion  Bulletin, 
Vol.  22,  No.  2,  February  1961,  pp.  15-17. 


106 


107 


"To  the  Political  Committee,"*  (June  1,  1962),  SWP 
Discussion  Bulletin,  Vol.  23,  No.  9,  October  1962, 
pp.  10-14.  (on  crisis  of  leadership  in  civil  rights 
movement) 

Motion  made  at  June  14-17,  1962  National  Commit- 
tee Plenum  Discussion  on  World  Movement*; 
later  withdrawn,  1  p. 

"Plenum  Discussion  of  World  Movement.  Part  3,"* 
SWP  Discussion  Bulletin,  Vol.  23,  No.  6, 
November  1962,  pp.  7-12. 

"Plenum  Discussion  on  Negro  Struggle.  Extended 
Remarks,"*  SWP  Discussion  Bulletin,  Vol.  23,  No. 
9,  October  1962,  pp.  15-22. 

"Plenum  Discussion  on  Negro  Struggle.  Summary,"* 
SWP  Discussion  Bulletin,  Vol.  23,  No.  9,  October 

1962,  pp.  40-41. 

"To  the  Editor  of  The  Militant"*  (January  30,  1963), 
attached  to  P.C.  Minutes,  No.  1,  January  25, 

1963,  4  pp.  (on  seniority  and  black  workers) 
"Revolutionary  Integration— Draft  Resolution  on  the 

Negro  Struggle,"*  SWP  Discussion  Bulletin,  Vol. 
24,  No.  28,  June  1963,  pp.  1-45. 

"Political  Resolution  submitted  to  the  21st  National 
Convention  of  the  SWP,  1965,  adopted  by  the 
Seattle  Branch,"*  co-authored  with  Clara  Kaye, 
SWP  Discussion  Bulletin,  Vol.  25,  No.  8,  [1965], 
pp.  1-62. 

"Radical  Laborism  versus  Bolshevik  Leadership,  The 
Organization  Problem  of  the  S.W.P.,"*  co- 
authored  with  Clara  Kaye,  SWP  Discussion 
Bulletin,  Vol.  25,  No.  14,  [1965],  pp.  1-28. 

"To  Ed  [Shaw],  National  Office,  SWP,"*  (July  13, 
1965),  attached  to  P.C.  Minutes,  No.  8,  July  16, 
1965,  2  pp. 

"To  the  Political  Committee,"*  (December  13,  1965), 
SWP  Internal  Information  Bulletin,  July  1966, 
pp.  11-204 

"To:  Comrade  Ed  Shaw  and  the  National  Committee, 
SWP,"  by  Seattle  Branch,  SWP,  and  the  national 
Kirk-Kaye  Tendency,  (March  8,  1966),  SWP 
Internal  Information  Bulletin,  July  1966,  pp. 
32-35. 

"Statement  of  Resignation  from  the  S.W.P.,"*  co- 
authored  with  27  others,  (April  9,  1966),  SWP 
Internal  Information  Bulletin,  July  1966,  pp. 
51-61. 

"Why  We  Left  the  Socialist  Workers  Party,"*  co- 
authored  with  Clara  Kaye,  Frank  Krasnowsky, 
David  Dreiser  and  Waymon  Ware,  June  1966, 
8pp4 

"Call  to  a  Conference  of  the  Freedom  Socialist  Party 
of  Washington  to  Reconstitute  the  Party  as  a 


Permanent  Membership  Organization,"  co- 
authored  with  Waymon  Ware,  Arthur  Mink,  Glo- 
ria Martin,  Frank  Krasnowsky,  Fred  Berg  and  Gus 
Carlson  (Executive  Committee,  FSP),  July  1966, 

2  pp. 

"Report  of  an  Observer:  First  National  Conference  of 

Spartacist  League  Marked  by  Seriousness  and 

Youth,"  The  Freedom  Socialist,  Vol.   1,  No.  2, 

November  5,  1966,  pp.  8-9. 
"Greetings  Delivered  to  the  Spartacist  Conference," 

The  Freedom  Socialist,  Vol.  1,  No.  2,  November 

5,  1966,  p.  9. 
"In  Defence  of  the  Chinese  Revolution,"*  co-authored 

with  David  Dreiser  and  Frank  Krasnowsky  (for 

the   Freedom   Socialist  Party  of  Washington), 

January  1967,  10  pp. 
"Program  of  the  Freedom  Socialist  Party  (Adopted  at 

Founding  Conference,  July,  1966),"  co-authored 

with  Waymon  Ware,  July  1967,  8  pp. 
"Revolutionary  Integration:  the  Dialectics  of  Black 

Liberation,"*  Revolutionary  Age,  Vol.  1,  No.  1, 

1968,  pp.  13-57. 
"The  Emancipation  of  Women,"*  co-authored  with 

Clara  Kaye,  Revolutionary  Age,  Vol.  1,  No.  3, 

1968,  pp.  17-25. 
"Crisis  and  Leadership.  Part  One:  The  Crisis,"*  co- 
authored  with  Clara  Kaye,  FSP  pamphlet,  1969, 

76  pp. 
"Socialism  and  Black  Liberation,"*  co-authored  with 

Ian  Parry,  Revolutionary  Age,  Vol.  3,  No.  2,  1974, 

pp.  25-52. 
"A  Letter  to  American  Trots kyists:  Too  Little,  Too 

Late  (Memorandum  on  the  Problems  of  Building 

a  Revolutionary  Party),"*  Revolutionary  Age,  Vol. 

3,  No.  4,  1974/75,  pp.  17-434 
"Marxist  Perspectives  on  Black  Liberation,"  1970s, 

29  pp. 
"For  Rebuilding  CAPA  on  a  Mass  Base,"  mid-1970s, 

1  p.  (on  the  Coalition  Against  Police  Abuse  in 

Los  Angeles) 
"Preface  to  the  First  Edition  of  the  First  Volume  of 

the  Documents  of  Black  Revolt,"  October  1978, 

3  pp. 

"Prospectus  and  Attachment:  IV.  The  Economics  of 
Slavery,"  (undated),  Spartacist  League /U.S.  Inter- 
nal Discussion  Bulletin,  Whole  No.  42,  August 
1983,  pp.  10-15. 

"Once  Again  Caste,"  with  I.  Parry,  April  21,  1984, 
9  pp. 

To  9th  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals,  U.S.  Courthouse,  San 
Francisco,  May  7,  1987,  1  p.  (demanding  release 
of  Geronimo  Pratt) 


108 


Letters 


To  Richard,  undated,  2  pp.  (on  social  composition 

and  the  working  class) 
To  William  Warde,  June  19,  1951,  2  pp.  (on  SWP 

plenum) 
To  Jean  [Blake],  October  19,  1957,  1  p.  (on  Militant 

article  on  Little  Rock) 
To  Dave  [Dreiser],  November  10,  1959,  2  pp.  (on 

Caste,  Class,  and  Race  by  Oliver  C.  Cox) 
To  Jean,  August  12,   1962,  6  pp.   (on  June  1962 

plenum) 
To  Murry  [Weiss],  March  19, 1963, 1  p.  (on  the  SWP) 
To  Jim   [Robertson],  August   14,   1966,   1   p.   (on 

attending  SL  conference) 
To  Jim,  January  10,  1967,  2  pp.  (on  Maoism  and 

relations  with  SL) 
To  Jim,   February  12,   1967,   1  p.   (on  China  and 

relations  with  SL) 
To  Dave,  July  23,  1969,  3  pp.  (on  SDS  and  PL) 
To  Frank  [Krasnowsky],  [January  1972],  2  pp.  (on 

FSP) 
To  Dave,  February  15,  1978,  3  pp.  (on  1963  Resolu- 
tion on  Revolutionary  Integration) 
To  Jim,  June  14,  1978,  4  pp.  (on  National  Maritime 

Union) 
To  Murry,  June  30, 1978,  3  pp.  (on  dispute  with  FSP) 
To  Jim,  July  9,  1978,  2  pp.  (on  relations  with  SL; 

Stanley  Aronowitz) 
To    Sam    Deaderick,    Editorial    Board    of  Freedom 

Socialist,  [1978],  2  pp.  (on  black  liberation) 
To  Jim,  October  15,  1978, 1  p.  (query  on  Alice  Bryant 

of  Cotton  Club) 
To  Dave,  April  24,  1982,  2  pp.  (on  slavery) 
To   Debbie    [Maguire],   May   11,   1983,   3  pp.    (on 

Abstract  on  history  of  slavery) 
To  Debbie,  May  29,  1983,  SLAJ.S.  Internal  Discussion 

Bulletin,  Whole  No.  41,  August  1983,  pp.  30-32. 

(on  SWP  and  black  transitional  organizations)^ 
To  Dorothy  [Healey],  April  21,  1983,  6  pp.  (on  black 

liberation) 
To  Dave,  May  19,  1983,  2  pp.  (on  Abstract) 
To  Dorothy,  June  10,  1983,  2  pp.  (on  the  SWP) 
To  Stanley  Aronowitz,  June  18,  1983,  11  pp.  (on 

Stalinism  and  Maoism)^ 
To  Dave,  June  27,  1983,  8  pp.  (on  Abstract) 
To  Debbie,  July  22,  1983,  4  pp.  (on  Abstract) 
To  Jim,  July  24,  1983,  Sl/U.S.  Internal  Discussion 

Bulletin,  Whole  No.  41,  August  1983,  pp.  33-35. 

(on  CP  and  work  in  the  South) 
To  Jim,  August  6,  1983,  SLAJ.S.  Internal  Discussion 

Bulletin,  Whole  No.  42,  August  1983,  pp.  25-26. 

(on  Nicaragua  and  the  USSR) 


To  Dave,  September  19,  1983,  3  pp.  (on  the  woman 
question  and  SWP) 

To  Jim,  October  1,  1983,  1  p.  (on  SWP  work  around 

CP  ca.  1956) 
To  Jim,  January  5, 1984,  SL/U.S.  Internal  Information 

and  Discussion  Bulletin,  Whole  No.  43,  March 

1984,  p.  63.  (on  service  workers  unions;  M.L. 

King) 
To  Jim,  January  15,  1984,  SLAJ.S.  Internal  Informa- 
tion  and  Discussion  Bulletin,  Whole   No.   43, 

March  1984,  pp.  64-67.  (on  color  caste  question 

in  U.S.):}: 
To  Jim,   October   19,    1984,  2   pp.    (on   1953   Los 

Angeles  lectures) 
To  Jim,  October  26,  1984,  2  pp.  (on  color  caste) 
To  Dave,  June  13, 1985,  2  pp.  (on  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin) 
To  Jim,  July  26,  1985,  Party  Builder  (SL/U.S.),  No.  4, 

June  1986,  p.  39.  (on  SL  internal  education) 
To  Cliff  Carter,  July  31,  1985,  1  p.  (on  1953  Los 

Angeles  lectures) 
To  Jim,  September  9,  1985,  SLAJ.S.  Internal  Bulletin, 

Whole  No.  45,  November  1985,  pp.  5-7.  (on 

1983  SL  convention) 
To  Dave,  August  1,  1985,  2  pp.  (on  Abstract) 
To  Dave,  August  2,  1985,  2  pp.  (on  Abstract) 
To  Jim,  August  11,  1985,  3  pp.  (on  Earl  Ofari) 
To  Earl  [Ofari],  August  11,  1985,  2  pp.  (on  radical 

liberals) 
To   Dave,   August  29,    1985,   4  pp.    (on   Melville's 

"Benito  Cerino") 
To  John  Sharpe,  December  11,  1985,  2  pp.  (on  notes 

on  Reformation) 
To  Debbie  and  Jim,  December  12,  1985,  1  p.  (on 

relations  with  SL) 
To  Jim,  March  21,  1986,  SLAJ.S.  Internal  Bulletin, 

Whole   No.   49,   January   1988,   pp.   5-6.    (on 

bombing  of  Libya)$ 

To  Cliff,  April  4,  1986,  1  p.  (on  Nat  Turner) 

To  Jim,  April  27,  1986,  1  p.  (on  relations  with  SL) 

To  Earl  Ofari,  August  24,  1986,  2  pp.  (on  DSA  and 

black  nationalism) 
To  Jonny,  March  16,  1987,  7  pp.  (on  political  history 

in  SWP  and  FSP;  Middle  East) 
To  Jim,  March  17,  1987,  2  pp.  (on  Lenin's  Testament 

and  glasnost) 
To  Jim,  June  20,  1987,  2  pp.  (on  racial  structure  of 

U.S.) 
To  Jim,  September  13,  1987,  1  p.  (on  relations  with 

SL) 


109 


Manuscripts 


"The  Problems  of  Social  Composition  as  it  relates  to 
Theory,  Strategy,  Program  and  Tactics,"  undated, 
12  pp. 

Notes  for  three  lectures  on  the  Reformation,  1940s, 
82  pp. 

Notes  for  presentation  on  history  of  U.S.  radical  or- 
ganizations' approaches  to  black  struggle  since 
1917,  ca.  1954,  19  pp. 

"Report  to  the  District  Negro  Commission,"  1956,  12 
pp.  (critique  of  CP  on  civil  rights  movement)}: 

"Notes  on  'Zionism  Racism'  and  the  Mid-East  Crisis," 
undated  1970s,  5  pp. 

"Critical  Notes  on  Cannon's  Conception  of  the  Revolu- 
tionary Party,"  ca.  1973,  13  pp. 


"Notes     Towards     Revolutionary     Perspectives     in 

Britain,"  ca.  1975,  5  pp. 
"To:  Pasadena  Community  Information  Center,"  ca. 

1976,  9  pp.   (proposal  for  class  series  on  the 

struggle  against  slavery) 
Autobiographical   Manuscript,   "How  I   Learned  to 

Love  My  Carcinoma,"  1978-1984,  315  pp. 
"Abstract  of:  The  Struggle  Against  Slavery  in  the 

United  States.  I.  The  Rise  of  the  Slave  Power  and 

Its  Ascendancy  II.  The  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power 

and    the   Aftermath,"   co-authored   with   Dave 

Dreiser,  mid-1980s,  154  pp. 


Lectures  and  Interviews  on  Cassette 


The  Civil  War  and  the  Black  Question  in  American 
History,  lecture  series  at  the  SWP  West  Coast 
Vacation  School  (incomplete),  1949 

The  Chinese  Revolution  and  the  Russian  Bureaucracy, 
lecture,  [1961?] 

On  the  SWP's  Work  in  the  National  Maritime  Union, 
interview  with  Gene  Herson  and  Carl  Lewis, 
March  2,  1975,  2  hours 


On  the  SWP  and  the  Fight  Against  Black  Oppression, 
interview  with  Charles  Du  Bois  and  Carl  Lewis, 
April  22  and  May  5,  1977,  3  hours 

On  SWP  History,  discussion  with  Jim  Robertson, 
September  8,  1983,  1.5  hours 


Revised  August  1990 


Black  History  and  the  Class  Struggle 

A  Spartacist  Pamphlet  Series 


No.  1    Black  History  and  the  Class  Struggle 

$.25  (16  pages) 
Includes: 

•  John  Brown  and  Frederick  Douglass: 
Heroes  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Struggle 

No.  2   On  the  Civil  Rights  Movement 

$.75  (32  pages) 
Includes: 

•  Bourgeoisie  Celebrates  King's  Liberal  Pacifism 

•  Malcolm  X:  Courageous  Fighter  for  Black 
Liberation 

•  SNCC:  "Black  Power"  and  the  Democrats 

No.  3    Massacre  of  Philly  MOVE 
$.75  (32  pages) 

Articles  from  Workers  Vanguard  detailing  the 
grotesque  racist  bombing  of  Philly  MOVE,  signature 
of  the  Reagan  years. 

No.  4   Black  Soldiers  in  the  Jim  Crow  Military 

$.75  (32  pages) 

Articles  dealing  with  the  military  question  and  black 

oppression. 

No.  5    Finish  the  Civil  War! 

$1  (32  pages) 

Articles  on  the  continuing  struggle  to  finish  the  Civil 

War  and  fulfill  the  promise  of  black  freedom. 

Includes: 

•  Claude  McKay:  From  Harlem  to  Moscow — Blacks 
and  Bolsheviks 

•  The  Killing  Floor — A  Review 

Chicago  1919:  Racism  and  Union-Busting 


No.  6   Toussaint  L'Ouverture  and  the  Haitian 
Revolution 

$1  (32  pages) 
Includes: 

•  Mumia  Abu-Jamal  Speaks  from  Death  Row 

No.  7   Glory:  Black  Soldiers  Fight  for  Freedom 

$1  (40  pages) 
Includes: 

•  Glory — A  Review 

•  How  Mississippi  Burning  Rewrites  History 

No.  8   South  Africa  and  Permanent  Revolution 

$1  (48  pages) 
Includes: 

•  South  Africa:  Razor's  Edge 

•  Mandela  Released 

•  Smash  Apartheid!  For  Workers  Revolution! 

No.  9   There  Is  No  Justice  in  Capitalist  America 

$1  (56  pages) 
Includes: 

•  Outrage  Over  Racist  Acquittal  of  Cops  in 
Rodney  King  Case 

•  L.A.  Upheaval  Shakes  America 

•  Education  U.S.A. — Separate  and  Unequal 

No.  10   Malcolm  X:  The  Man,  the  Myth, 
the  Struggle 

$1  (48  pages) 
Includes: 

•  Activists  Remember  the  Civil  Rights 
Movement  and  the  Black  Power  Era 

•  Imperialism  Starves  Africa 

•  Moscow:  African  Student  Murdered  by 
Yeltsin's  Cops 


Prometheus  Research  Series 

Published  by  the  Prometheus  Research  Library 


No.  1:  Guidelines  on  the  Organizational 

Structure  of  Communist  Parties,  on  the 
Methods  and  Content  of  Their  Work 

Complete  and  accurate  English  translation  of  1921  Comintern 
Resolution  from  final  German  text.  Includes,  for  the  first  time  in 
English,  the  reports  on  and  discussion  of  the  Resolution  at  the 
Third  Congress.  With  introduction  by  Prometheus  Research 
Library  staff. 

$6    (includes  postage)     94  pages 

No.  2:  Documents  on  the 

"Proletarian  Military  Policy" 

Includes  rare  materials  from  the  Trotskyist  movement  in  the 
U.S.  and  Europe  during  World  War  II,  as  well  as  an  analytical 
introduction  by  the  International  Executive  Committee  of  the 
International  Communist  League  (Fourth  Internationalist). 

$9    (includes  postage)     102  pages 


No.  3:  In  Memoriam,  Richard  S.  Fraser: 
An  Appreciation  and  Selection 
of  His  Work 

A  memorial  to  comrade  Richard  S.  Fraser  (1913-1988),  who 
pioneered  the  Trotskyist  understanding  of  black  oppression  in 
the  United  States,  fighting  for  the  perspective  of  Revolutionary 
Integration. 

$7     (includes  postage)     110  pages 

No.  4:  Yugoslavia,  East  Europe  and  the 
Fourth  International:  The  Evolution 
of  Pabloist  Liquidationism 

Covers  the  internal  discussion  within  the  Fourth  International 
over  its  flawed  response  to  the  Yugoslav  Revolution  and  the 
1948  Tito-Stalin  split  and  includes  rare  documents  from  the 
period. 

$7     (includes  postage)     70  pages 


Order  all  publications  from/make  checks  payable  to:  Spartacist  Publishing  Co.,  Box  1377  GPO,  New  York,  NY  10116 


Prometheus  Research  Library 

A  Working  Archive  of  American  and  International  Marxist  History, 
Documentation  and  Related  Interests 


The  Prometheus  Research  Library  is  a  working  re- 
search facility  for  a  wide  range  of  Marxist  studies  and 
also  the  central  reference  archive  of  the  Spartacist  League 
of  the  U.S.,  section  of  the  International  Communist 
League  (Fourth  Internationalist).  Library  holdings  include 
substantial  materials  on  the  organizations  inspired  and 
led  by  Marx,  Engels,  Lenin  and  Trotsky,  as  well  as  works 
on  related  topics,  sometimes  remote.  The  purpose  of  the 
PRL  is  to  collect,  preserve  and  make  available  the  histor- 
ical record  of  the  international  workers  movement  and 
to  assist  Marxist  scholarship.  It  is  both  a  strength  and 
weakness  of  the  PRL  that  it  is  necessarily  centered  upon 
the  work  and  interests  of  the  American  Communist  and 
Trotskyist  movement. 

The  Library's  collection,  which  does  not  circulate, 
grew  out  of  the  forty-year  accumulated  and  organized 
holdings  of  James  Robertson,  both  correspondence  and 
printed  materials.  The  collection  now  includes  over 
5,000  books  and  periodical  volumes,  100  reels  of  micro- 
filmed documents  and  periodicals,  and  150  linear  feet 
of  archival  documents  and  bulletins.  Particular  emphasis 
is  on  minutes  of  leading  committees  and  internal  dis- 
cussion material.  Approximately  three-quarters  of  the 
holdings  are  in  English,  with  significant  materials  in 
German  and  Russian,  as  well  as  French,  Spanish,  Polish 
and  other  languages.  The  Library  also  contains  the  pub- 
lished works  of  many  non-Marxist  authors  who  strike  our 
interest. 

The  Library  has  its  own  publishing  program,  mak- 
ing available  rare  materials  that  are  an  indispensable  part 
of  the  documentary  history  of  the  Trotskyist  movement. 
As  part  of  this,  the  PRL  has  published  four  archival 
bulletins  (see  inside  back  cover).  In  1992  the  Library 
published  James  P.  Cannon  and  the  Early  Years  of  American 


Communism,  Selected  Writings  and  Speeches,  1920-1928.  The 
Library  has  also  recently  published  in  Russian  The  Com- 
munist International  After  Lenin,  containing  Leon  Trotsky's 
Critique  of  the  Program  adopted  by  the  Comintern  in 
1928,  as  well  as  other  key  documents  by  Trotsky.  This 
volume  makes  these  works  available  in  the  former  Soviet 
Union  for  the  first  time  and  includes  an  introduction 
by  the  PRL;  clothbound,  309  pages. 

The  PRL  is  also  the  distributor  of  bound  volumes 
and  microfilm  editions  of  periodicals  published  by  the 
International  Communist  League.  At  present,  these 
include:  Workers  Vanguard  (1970-1992),  the  biweekly 
newspaper  of  the  Spartacist  League/U.S.;  the  press  of  its 
youth  organization,  Young  Spartacus  (1971-1978);  and 
the  ICL  theoretical  journal  Spartacist  in  both  English 
(1964-1987)  and  German  (1974-1982)  editions.  Each 
volume  or  microfilm  roll  contains  a  complete  cross-refer- 
enced index  and  sets  are  available  at  modest  cost. 

The  Prometheus  Research  Library  is  open  to  quali- 
fied scholars  needing  our  specialized  collections.  Since 
the  Library  operates  on  a  limited  schedule,  researchers 
are  required  to  send  written  requests  about  specific 
projects  and  for  appointments.  A  brochure  further  de- 
scribing the  Library  is  available. 

Please  address  all  inquiries  to: 

Prometheus  Research  Library 
Box  185,  Canal  Street  Station 
New  York,  NY     10013 
Phone:  (212)  966-1866 

Prometheus  Research  Library  Western  Station 
Box  32463,  Civic  Center  Station 
Oakland,  CA     94604 
Phone:  (510)  839-0853 


James  P.  Cannon  and  the  Early  Years  of  American  Communism 
Selected  Writings  and  Speeches,  1920-1928 


James  P.  Cannon  (1890-1974)  was  a  founding  leader  of 
American  Communism  and  later  a  central  collaborator 
of  Leon  Trotsky.  This  new  volume  of  Cannon's  writings, 
which  covers  the  period  when  Cannon  was  one  of  the 
principal  leaders  of  the  American  section  of  the  Commu- 
nist International,  fills  a  gap  in  his  published  works.  A 
supplement  to  Theodore  Draper's  two-volume  history  of 
American  Communism's  first  decade  and  to  Cannon's 
own  The  First  Ten  Years  of  American  Communism,  this 
book  provides  new  and  revealing  documentary  material 
on  the  American  party  and  sheds  new  light  on  the  Sta- 
linization  of  the  Communist  International. 


Published  in  1992.  624  pages,  smyth-sewn  binding,  historical 
introduction,  glossary,  bibliography,  index,  photographs. 
$14.50  paper.  (NYS  residents  add  8.25%  sales  tax.  Shipping 
and  handling  $3.50)  ISBN  0-9633828-1-0. 

Order  from/make  checks  payable  to  Spartacist  Publishing 
Company,  Box  1377  GPO,  New  York,  NY  10116. 


ISBN    0-9633828-5-3 


9  '780963"382856 


50600)